2010-09-08, 17:13 | Link #981 |
Adeptus Animus
Author
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 36
|
What it boils down to is this: There is no logical reason for the off-Earth weapons to be worse than ours. In fact, being that this is a society that is ahead of us in technology, it's far more logical to assume that their weaponry is superior to our own. Then we watch the series and see that magic can hold it's own against these weapons, with mages successfully defending against them, or countering them.
Magic can be effective against mass-based weaponry. At the same time, villains using them means that the reverse is true as well. Conclusion? Magic and mass-based weaponry are on equal ground. Both have ways to defend and defeat the other. |
2010-09-08, 17:21 | Link #982 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
I'd still say magic is better, at least until you reach the nuclear explosion level. Hell, if we're going to argue anything about science being better, I'd probably say biological weapons are where it's at. Bombard your enemies with lethal gas, or spread a virus, and you can knock out a lot of mages (Dieci's attack at the peace center shows this, even though she was using something non-lethal). Not everyone is a mage, so guns are effective on the non-mage people. You also have to remember that there are a lot of normals in the Bureau. |
|
2010-09-08, 17:44 | Link #983 |
Adeptus Animus
Author
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 36
|
Yes, that's what I meant with on equal ground. Both have advantages the other do not. Magic is more flexible, guns can be used by anyone, stuff like that.
Also, bigger guns can be compared to stronger mages. A random thug with a small gun isn't much of a threat, but a regular B-rank mage isn't going to fare as well as Subaru against an anti-tank weapon. |
2010-09-08, 18:25 | Link #984 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Yes and no. A strong mage isn't any harder to transport than a weak one. Just harder to mass produce. Quote:
|
||
2010-09-08, 19:11 | Link #985 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Life's different when you use the observations... Last edited by arkhangelsk; 2010-09-08 at 20:18. |
|||
2010-09-08, 20:40 | Link #986 |
~ Your Smile ~
Author
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 346Pro
Age: 38
|
I'll bite. Arkh, could you list all the attributes of Nanohaverse conventional weapons technology, and how they differ/are the same from our world? Use any method you wish; I can't do it myself...
__________________
|
2010-09-08, 21:18 | Link #987 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here's me conducting a theory, based on limited evidence, in the manner which you do: Remember that gun in SSX that the poacher shot Erio with? Your claim that it's "whine-up" time means it was somehow a poor gun? Maybe the whine-up means it's some sort of advanced hand-held railgun charging up. Such a weapon would shoot a projectile at far deadlier speeds than a normal gun, which means it's all the more impressive that Erio easily survived it. The problem with my theory? There's no proof. It's just a wild mass guess that introduces new elements and makes a simple situation all the more complex when it doesn't need to be. Since it's an audio program and we have no visuals, we have limited information. And to invent such a new theory does nothing to help us explain anything else, so it's ultimately a pointless exercise, especially when we already have a perfectly fine explanation due to seeing mages take numerous kinetic impacts throughout the series and coming through just fine. I'll use your logic style again: ark must be some sort of robot; it makes sense, because he continuously spouts the same things over and over again, like some programming. It's a needlessly complex explanation, and the simpler one is that he's just a human, but obviously my explanation is just better because I say so. Even though I have no proof and requires people to stretch their belief unreasonably. |
||
2010-09-09, 00:02 | Link #988 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not to mention in some cases, a weapon with a low speed and warhead effect performance is actually more logical than a high solution. For example, when it is a "howitzer" made from an arm, mounted on a more or less human sized body. On the general point of whether magic can counter against mass, I'll agree it probably can. And it can do it without having to give advantages to magic it doesn't have or trying to take away its limitations - which arguably in fact makes me more pro-magic than you (that's for those who think I must just be miserable constantly picturing the Nanoverse as weak), since I think magic has a chance as is, w/o buffs. On the more strategic point, the debate is whether mass weapons are useful in a "fringe" (defeating unprepared mages, non-mages, en-masse v 1 ... etc) or central way. If we ignore the observable technical correlations for the moment, and just hang onto this plotline, while it is possible to rationalize the ban in a fringe scenario, the justification is much stronger in a "central" scenario - it becomes a matter of simple national security for government relying on mage-centric security force to suppress things. It'll also explain the desire for thugs to have some (even those rather limited specimens we see). As for why don't thugs use guns more like ours, I'll say that large scale re-development efforts are spotted and splashed before they reach fruit. As for the average thug (or small group of them), a modern gun is a rather complex affair and it is unlikely the thug will successfully to design and make one with the help of only a non-specialist education. More likely, any illegal slugthrower they make will be cobbled together based on conveniently available aftermarket parts, with correspondingly low performance (if it has high enough performance, its application as a mass weapon would be clear and access will be restricted or banned). Last edited by arkhangelsk; 2010-09-09 at 00:47. |
||
2010-09-09, 02:16 | Link #989 | |||
Friendly Satanist
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2010-09-09, 05:42 | Link #990 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Which is all very well, and scientifically correct, but why does everything change when the situation inverts to "howitzer" and <50m/s speed? I prefer to be consistent and scientific. Observations through good and bad. Quote:
Think about how little we really know about most other countries. How interested do you think the average syndicate is in our "backwater" world? |
||||||
2010-09-09, 06:32 | Link #991 | |||
Friendly Satanist
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
(a) Barrier Jackets are utterly, ridiculously fragile to physical damage, to the point where they can be damaged by insects flapping their wings at a distance or: (b) there are some magical effects that are not accompanied by a colorful glow Given that the insects are known to be magical in nature, and that we never see BJs getting ripped from e.g. a mage stretching her arms or something like that, choosing (b) over (a) seems like a no-brainer to me. Quote:
|
|||
2010-09-09, 07:18 | Link #992 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, considering that mages basically either move & attack (and often only move OR attack) or defend, to overemphasize the whole shield part would be improper in the tactical decision, even if one optimistically assumes they are perfectly safe if only they turn the shield on. Eventually, the mage would want to actually ATTACK rather than get into a stalemate contest and he'll be holed... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Or, to match our current situation a little better, suppose you cannot seriously estimate the plausibility based on its launch method (this would apply to basically all our Nanoverse launches, since the launch mechanism is magical or unknown - we have no mechanism, no real basis for saying the observed speed is even dubious; our personal wishes don't count). Quote:
|
||||||||
2010-09-09, 08:30 | Link #993 | ||||||||||
Friendly Satanist
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, this point is entirely tangential; the fact of the matter is that magical defenses can protect mages against mass-based weapons (at least to some substantial extent). The tactical implications are a different topic altogether. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I see you conveniently contradict yourself a little bit further on, as well... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||
2010-09-09, 09:41 | Link #994 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
You asked me for where the poor performances are, as if you doubt their existence, even though they are the very point of discussion. I merely point out that the fact you are trying to excise some of them from the record is the best admission they exist.
Quote:
Quote:
You are pleasantly assuming the mass-based weapon user will actually keep shooting ineffectually at the target. More likely, he's either to shift to heavier weapons to force a breakthrough, or he's going to stop attacking. The mage has a mission to finish, and he can't do that hunkering in the shield. By pairing up, the situation improves (that's the basis of how I see anti-gunner operations take place, rather than the BJ being just effectively invulnerable), but we are still left with them coordinating their movements and one of them will have to stick out of cover to shoot, leaving him vulnerable. At this point, we have a real tactics fight. Quote:
Quote:
Besides, the debate of interpretations is a very different matter from literally throwing out the observations. [quote]Nice ad hominem there. Depending on who was throwing it, it could well have been magic. Perhaps you've forgotten what the title of the series is? I see you conveniently contradict yourself a little bit further on, as well... I'm talking about the part where people handwave away any problems with their theory with "its magic". It is not so much the idea of involving magic that's annoying - obviously some things like magiflight must involve magic somewhere. The annoying part is how when all analysis stops, and theories are no longer created but just attacking theories they don't like. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Granted, slowing down of fast movement is more statistically likely than the speed up, but that's a literary rather than scientific concern, and both combined would be a minority in comparison to the time it spends at 1X. It is one thing to say that, for example, Males are more likely than Females to commit crimes, and another to say this is a reason for assuming all males that you don't like are criminals. |
|||||||
2010-09-09, 10:06 | Link #995 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
By the way, the shanking explanations are consistant; in both cases, the auto-barrier/BJ combo was weakened. Another amusing thing... you say that magic moves slow, and their bass-based weapons are slow. Thus everything is moving slow. Or, another way to say it: mass-based weapons and magic are moving at the same speed. Of course, one explanation is that it really is slow... and the other is they really are moving fast and that timing tricks are used to slow it down enough so that we can follow what is going on. The latter is the most common among anime and live action movies. So, obviously, in your case, when confronted with the most obvious explanation, you go with the least obvious explanation supported with non-existent evidence. Ya know, I do partially think you're trolling with all this, but it's cool; I practice backtrolling. That is, to keep trolls occupied so they have less time to bother other thin-skinned citizens of the internet. =) |
|
2010-09-09, 10:26 | Link #996 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is in comparison to the idea that the AB/BJ combo simply does not have the performance people think it does. It uses both pieces of evidence directly, does not have to contradict anything, and doesn't have a problem to solve. Really, the victor is obvious. Quote:
|
|||
2010-09-09, 10:39 | Link #997 | ||||||||
Friendly Satanist
Join Date: May 2009
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2010-09-09, 11:40 | Link #998 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Such thought patterns have kept humankind in the Dark Ages for centuries, and it is the Renaissance that allowed us to break free, so we can discuss the scientific analysis of MGLN on a forum. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2010-09-09, 11:51 | Link #999 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Thus, which is it? Answer the question. Can an HE round that can take out a tank, take out a cyborg? You're trying to split hairs here, and hoping people won't actually be informed enough about military equipment to see the weakness. AN HEAT round is specifically made to penetrate tank armor. It's actually less destructive than a plain HE round. So you're saying the "weaker" round can take out a cyborg, but the "stronger" round can't. And in both cases, you're being pedantic; an HE round that can take out a tank, is an HE round that can take out a tank. You really should stop trying to ignore facts. Quote:
And completely ignore mages easily surviving every kinetic impact to date under normal circumstances. And there weren't multiple explanations. There was a single explanation from our side: In both cases, the AB/BJ was weakened. That's it. That's one explanation that covers both. Quote:
Mass based weapons move slow. Magic moves slow. People move slow (they block instead of dodging a lot). So the Nanoverse must move slower than our universe! They all move the same relative speeds in the Nanoverse, so it all balances out. The explanation is so obvious now, thanks to your expert observations! =) |
|||
2010-09-09, 12:28 | Link #1000 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
As for the HE round, the very fact that a small caliber HE round can do the job says much about the tank, because while a HE round has a larger blast radius and thus may be loosely be called "more destructive", its omnidirectionality limits intensity and the nature of its blast makes it weak against hard targets. Not that the weakness of the tank does anything to save a mage's reputation, because a mage apparently won't have survived that round. Quote:
Besides, I don't think my answer is necessarily more complicated. I've decided on a layered scheme. The BJ with individual variation is basically useless (kinetically) so it can be blamed for all the weak spots. Active defenses with individual variation are more useful. It is not only very simple, but it layered structure allows its to capably cover all the situations w/o further discomfort PLUS it allows the maximum possible adherence to scientific principles. Your answer is to say that the the AB/BJ is integral. Now that you have already concluded it can guard against most mass-based weapons, an explanation has to be come up with for each time it does not, even when it actually is contradictory to the information available. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|