Halo Humans vs Mass Effect Small Arms Weaponry: Whose is better?:

Total posts: [2,322]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 93
76 MetaSkipper2nd Sep 2012 03:45:29 PM from right behind you... , Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
the Prodigal
Actually, what kinda fic is this we're researching for?
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
I'm simply trying to decide what kind of weapons the UNSC would want to adopt from the Mass Effectverse.

Also, we're comparing weapon effectiveness story wise. Gameplay doesn't count. Story wise, Halo missiles do a ton of damage.
78 MetaSkipper2nd Sep 2012 07:34:44 PM from right behind you... , Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
the Prodigal
Well, I think that they'd wanna use ME designs for concealed weaponry, since they, y'know, shrink.

Not sure right now, hafta crap, post reserved for more thoughts.
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
79 CorrTerek2nd Sep 2012 07:49:30 PM from The Bland Line
The Permanently Confused
You might be able to rule out any weapons/tech that are supposed to work in synergy with biotics. I mean, if the two universes are crossing over then presumably the UNSC might eventually have access to biotics, but that'll take time. So, I guess things like Warp Ammo would have somewhat less of an appeal.

I'm already about 15 chapters in, and it's been pretty successful. It's set sometime after the Human-Covenant War, and I can't help but think how silly it is that humans haven't developed better weapons than they already have. I figured stealing Mass Accelerator weapons would be kind of the next evolution of kinetic weaponry.
81 MetaSkipper2nd Sep 2012 08:32:57 PM from right behind you... , Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
the Prodigal
I'd keep slugs, personally. They have more stopping and tearing power than grains of sand.
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
82 Cganale2nd Sep 2012 08:35:24 PM , Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
That Bastard
You can't judge Halo weapons by what's seen in the game. Both UNSC and Covenant equipment is obscenely nerfed for the sake of gameplay balance. It's been shown in the books that a single bolt from a plasma pistol, the weakest, most laughable weapon in any of the games, will boil away the Marines' armor like it's nothing and instant deep-fry the point of impact. Glancing blows melt body parts.

On the flip side, the UNSC has these nasty shits called the NOVA bombs, which I absolutely love. Set off in the belly of a Covenant supercarrier, the NOVA bomb completely incinerated a 500-ship fleet (note that a supercarrier typically has shields strong enough to contain the blast of a nuclear warhead) and had such leftover energy that it blasted a moon into halves. And by "halves" I really mean "one half and everything else is a memory."

Then you have nifty things actually seen in game, like improvising a slipspace drive to teleport one-third of a supercarrier into oblivion.

And then there's the MJOLNIR VII armor that's been introduced in Glasslands and may feature in the upcoming games. The stuff is self-sustaining, learns and repairs itself, actually is immune to the above-mentioned slipspace bomb, and pretty much makes Chief's armor look like an expensive toy.

edited 2nd Sep '12 8:38:24 PM by Cganale

"That went about as well as I expected."
83 CorrTerek2nd Sep 2012 08:37:33 PM from The Bland Line
The Permanently Confused
[up][up]One would think if that were the case the Mass Effect crew would have stuck with slugs, yeah?

84 MetaSkipper2nd Sep 2012 08:48:14 PM from right behind you... , Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
the Prodigal
But they're cooler! So what if they're more inefficient with ammo? They're still cooler!

Actually, the following article suggests that bullets moving too fast will not inflict as much stopping power than slower moving slugs, up to a point.

Some random guy's thoughts on stopping power.

Currently, there seems to be 2 big theories in "stopping power". I am defining "stopping power" as a bullet's ability to inflict damage on an attacker and to stop him from being able to continue his attack. Stopping power can vary hugely based on hit location, caliber, type of bullet (FMJ vs JHP), velocity of bullet, and probably a few other factors I am overlooking. For the purpose of this document, I am assuming all external factors (external to the round being used) are equal (hit location, size and mental status of bad guy, distance from good guy to bad guy, etc) between the rounds being compared.

The first theory, championed by such individuals as Marshall and Sanow, among others, is the "energy" theory. The basic premise is that the bullet stops a bad guy by dumping energy into the target, this energy then disrupts vital tissue, causes pain and shock, and generally disables the hostile. Energy theorists tend to value light weight high speed bullets for a given caliber.

The second theory, first championed by Dr Martin Fackler (a Vietnam trauma surgeon and later head of the Army's Ballistics labatory) and the FBI, is that a handgun bullet's stopping power is determined by only 2 factors. Depth of penetration (how far it buries into your target), and how much tissue it crushes during penetration (aka, how big of a hole).

I tend to dismiss the energy theory due to the poor data quality provided by theorists of it. The studies I've read and seen backing it usually have poor methodology (Marshall and Sanow in particular have been savaged due to the gaping flaws in their studies) and don't seem to match up with what happens in the real world. Probably the biggest argument against the energy theories is the excellent and well document research by Dr Fackler, and the FBI's research following the tragic Miami shootout of 1986. As a side note, many of the gimmick bullets on the market (Extreme Shock ammo being an infamous example of this) use the energy theory.

So that leaves us with the Fackler method. Meaning, drill a hole into your target thatís as big and deep as possible. What makes the hole big? The bullet expanding as it buries inside. What makes it go deep? Bullet weight and velocity. All things being equal, a small diameter heavy bullet traveling at high speed will go deeper then a large diameter light weight bullet traveling at low speed. The current "standard" for penetration as set by the FBI is 12 inches. Less penetration then this can result in a bullet not burying deep enough into a target and damaging vital structures (as happened during the 1986 Miami shooting). More penetration then this isn't necessarily harmful, but too much can mean that youíre losing expansion potential (see below) and having your round exit the bad guy.

Expansion with JHP's can get tricky. Expansion is usually determined by how the JHP is designed, with velocity playing a part as well. Historically itís been desirable to have more velocity (which helps with expansion usually), but the latest generation of JHP's can expand nicely even at lower velocities. Sometimes too much velocity will cause a JHP to fragment, or expand too much or too quickly, causing it to not penetrate deep enough. Too low of a velocity can result in under penetration and under expansion (worst of both worlds). Given equal factors and bullet design, the bigger the base caliber, the bigger the expanded bullet will be. Most JHP's will expand between 1.5 and 2.0 the size of the base caliber. This is why itís usually EXTREMELY foolish to use FMJ's for carry ammo. No expansion, and FMJ's (except in the small "poodle shooter" level of calibers) tend to exit right through your target and continue downrange. This is why virtually no police department in the US carry FMJ's in their handguns.

So in a perfect world, a given round would penetrate to 12 inches or a bit deeper, expanding as large as possible. All of the handgun calibers from 9mm and up can penetrate this deep (or more) depending on the bullet used. So the challenge is to get maximum expansion while maintaining the desired penetration. If thatís all that mattered, the perfect round would be a 45 acp JHP that makes a foot deep hole while expanding to about .9 inches.

However, there's a twist (as always). 45 acp guns tend to be larger, heavier, and harder recoiling compared to guns in 9mm and 40 S&W, while holding less ammunition (though some credible arguments exist that the recoil pattern of 40 S&W is snappier then 45 ACP). Whatís better? To make a few bigger holes in a given time frame, or make more smaller sized holes? Carry a gun that holds 12-17 smaller caliber rounds vs one that holds 7-13 larger ones? There's no "right" answer here. Every shooter will have to decide this for themselves.

TL;DR: Speed and size matter in stopping power. Speed more than size, but too fast and it deals less stopping power.

edited 2nd Sep '12 8:59:19 PM by MetaSkipper

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
85 MetaSkipper2nd Sep 2012 08:51:44 PM from right behind you... , Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
the Prodigal
Professor, you got a link to your fic? EDIT: Ahh, it's that one. Nice stuff.

In short, ME weapons are certainly more portable and versatile, but I'd rather have a DMR or Halo Shotgun at the end of the day. Dunno which is cheaper.

As for tech to steal, I dunno. Come back to you on that one.

After some thought, I think that ME guns are more effective against shields than Halo guns, but less effective against armor. ME guns probably impart more energy, but are less damaging physically. Maybe some weird gun which can use both, depending on the target? I mean, ME guns can compress, so you could make them like add-ons.

edited 2nd Sep '12 9:02:07 PM by MetaSkipper

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
[up]Yes, it's that one. PM me if you want to further discuss the fic itself, I don't want to veer too off topic.

As for high velocity vs impact and bullet size, it depends on the distance. Mass Accelerator weapons would have a huge advantage distance wise since they move with such a high speed. UNSC guns would pack a greater punch short range, however.

That could mean that Mass Accelerators are more effective in the open field and chemically propelled projectiles are more effective close quarters.

I would think Mass Accelerator weapons would be more effective against armor. It's been stated that kinetic energy weapons are nearly useless against energy shields, but plasma weapons can take them down pretty quickly. Likewise, armor is build out of metal designed to deflect the heat from plasma.

edited 2nd Sep '12 9:49:06 PM by TheProffesor

87 entropy132nd Sep 2012 10:09:40 PM from Somewhere only we know. , Relationship Status: Drift compatible
Since I'm not well-versed with Halo, here's a question:

Is there a weapon in Halo that can make mini-black holes?

edited 2nd Sep '12 10:14:13 PM by entropy13

I'm reading this because it's interesting. I think.

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over.
Why would I write that?
A mini black hole is pointless as a weapon. A black hole the size of the Statue of Liberty wouldn't sustain itself for several seconds at most. Anything less dense then a star would collapse in on itself.

And they have an awesome pistol. That's better.
Remember! Hyperbole is an exaggeration made for comedic effect, and shouldn't be taken literally!
89 entropy132nd Sep 2012 10:15:57 PM from Somewhere only we know. , Relationship Status: Drift compatible
[up]How is it pointless? I make a mini-black hole near the enemies, the enemies get sucked towards it, and then it collapses upon itself after a few seconds. No need to be able to penetrate shields/barriers/armor.

edited 2nd Sep '12 10:16:28 PM by entropy13

I'm reading this because it's interesting. I think.

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over.
Yes, they can. The Reapers are especially well known for this. They could create weapons that essentially fired a blackhole at someone, ripping them apart at the cellular level. It was apparently designed to collapse so it wouldn't become permanent. The gun, called the Reaper Blackstar, was so advanced that it couldn't be replicated.
91 MetaSkipper2nd Sep 2012 10:21:37 PM from right behind you... , Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
the Prodigal
[up][up]Because I could just blow you up instead, and it's probably faster and cheaper. I'd rather have a lot of rocket launchers than one black hole gun.

[up][up][up][up][up]I'm fairly sure that energy shields care more about energy imparted, which ME weapons are much better at. Armor, on the other hand, cares more about breaking factor. Yes, a fly going really fast will hurt, but a sword will kill you, even if it's going slower.

I know it's a moot point, but technically, you can't really have a "smaller" or "larger" black hole, if memory serves me right. A black hole is simply a hyper-condensation of mass, where, as you approach it, gravity approaches infinity. A "bigger" black hole would just have a "bigger" infinity, which is kinda moot. A small black hole would exert just as much force as a large one.

Localized time would stop, which could be useful or annoying. The whole planet would get sucked in, and anything in its range as well. It'd be a useful WMD, but not as an anti-infantry weapon.

edited 2nd Sep '12 10:28:00 PM by MetaSkipper

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
[up]This is fiction. Black Holes never work the way they're supposed to in real life.
93 MetaSkipper2nd Sep 2012 10:30:33 PM from right behind you... , Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
the Prodigal
Alright, so you have a very expensive and flashy rocket launcher, effectively. Good for you. I have a cheap and almost as effective in most cases rocket launcher.

edited 2nd Sep '12 10:33:18 PM by MetaSkipper

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
Hey, remember that Black Hole gun from ME 2? That thing was hardcore.

Ah, yes, that's it! The M-490 Blackstorm. It's not actually a black hole, but it's some mass effect field singularity that acts pretty much like the typical idea of a black hole. Man, heavy weapons really made Mass Effect 2's combat much more interesting than the combat in Mass Effect 3.
[up][up]Point taken. If you're aiming for concentrated destructive power, it would probably be more efficient to simply make high explosives.
96 MetaSkipper2nd Sep 2012 10:47:38 PM from right behind you... , Relationship Status: Hugging my pillow
the Prodigal
I think they actually could get something out of omniblades. Energy swords and grav hammers will probably remain superior, but an omniblade probably beats just punching or gun-butting someone.
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.
97 VutherA2nd Sep 2012 10:59:45 PM from Canada , Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Thank you, Monty Oum.
I suddenly wonder how recoil affects the guns in ME. Their codex entry states that they will produce recoil equivalent to their impact energy, but this is somewhat dampened by mass effect fields the rounds are suspended in, and I figure the gene therapy every ME soldier receives to improve their strength and stamina along with wearing armour which appears to be heavier than Halo Marine armour (I am guessing this since armor of the former appears to have the bare minimum of uncovered areas for flexibility while the latter are noticeably unarmoured around the thighs and inner arms. ODST armour seems to come pretty close to ME armour in coverage, though) may allow them to maintain a higher rate-of-fire without affecting accuracy... though I suppose the lighter guns of ME also provides less recoil-dampening than, well, heavier guns.

I can't answer that, I'm just thinking aloud.
It never made sense to me that Mass Accelerator weapons have recoil. Recoil stems from the propellant igniting and pushing the projectile out of the barrel at high speeds. Mass Acclerators are basically coil guns, which shouldn't have any recoil at all.
99 Balmung2nd Sep 2012 11:15:11 PM from Omaha, NE, Free American Empire , Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Break the Chains
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The propellant doesn't matter, there's gonna be recoil. Propelling a slug via electromagnetism is an action, and thus has an equal and opposite reaction (recoil).
I'm not exactly a physics genius, but you're basically saying the heat causes recoil?

Total posts: 2,322
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 93