[Megathread] Mass Effect 3

[Deleted]

Not yet. But they are working on it. The basic principles are already being worked on.

And some day, someone will send their dick through it.
It will be the future of dickpics, and their end.

[Vankrys]

I love how we humans can turn something that doesnt exist, and possibly never will be (and never will be with "ordinary" things in fantasy such as elves) into something so mundane and commonplace.

indeed.

Portable particle accelerator doesn't and may never exist but... we all know what happen if we cross the beams nonetheless.

[zealo]

And some day, someone will send their dick through it.
It will be the future of dickpics, and their end.

Is my brain extra slow today or won't they need to cut it off first to be able to send it through a teleporter?

[May90]

Oh my... Newton's theory was proven wrong? Really? What's next Euclidean geometry was proven wrong too by Lobachevsky and Riemann?

You know, Newton said that time is absolute, right? Oopsie daisies!

Really? How about factual observation of the law working in our universe? You know? Vacuum fluctuations? The annihilation process of particle/antiparticle?

What observations? Have they already measured the entire Universe's energy with incredible precision multiple times?

1. As if multiuniverse is proven?
2. As if multiuniverse is not an isolated system?

1. No, but it's close.
2. Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on the model you're considering. In most models, yes, it is isolated, but, since we cannot get any information from other universes, the total energy can increase or decrease for us effectively.

It is still under debate either antiparticles have negative mass or charge. But they do either of those as negative - that's a fact. The general leaning is to charge though. But negative mass is still just a hypothesis.

What? No, antiparticles have positive mass; otherwise annihilation would not create 2 photons with the energies we observe experimentally. The charge, however, is always opposite to the particle.
No one has experimentally observed a particle of negative mass yet, but it doesn't mean such particle doesn't exist; maybe the reason we don't see it is that we misinterpret certain events, such as beta-decay, taking a particle with negative mass for a particle with positive mass but less energy.
It is really very hard to check experimentally which sign of mass a particle have. I don't even know what process can make such difference possible to tell.

They annihilate when they collide.

They do not "collide". Their fields interact with each other and, based on cross-section of the interaction, have a certain probability to annihilate. This probability is typically quite low however, that's why in LHC they don't collide one proton and one anti-proton, but they collide huge fluxes of these particles hoping that at least one pair will annihilate, which happens quite rare since the energies in LHC are in TeVs, and cross-section is inversely proportional to the energy squared, if I recall correctly.

How ironical of you to use Newton's "wrong" formula.

This formula works quite well for our energies. You know what? There is still no completely precise formula for that, since we struggle trying to combine Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity - in their current form, they contradict each other in gravitational matters. But Newton's formula is a very good approximation, There is Einstein's formula as well (it is quite complex and uses the Ricci Tensor), but it gives about the same results for speeds well below that of light.

You are confused. You even use FTL with speed together as a phrase.

1. FTL means faster than light travel.
2. speed = distance (traveled) / time
3. If you travel 1 ly in half a year - you are traveling faster than light.
4. Traveling faster than light doesn't mean traveling at the speed greater than speed of light in absolute sense. Only relatively speaking as shown in p.2 and p.3.

In conclusion FTL term doesn't imply the absolute speed of travel greater than that of light. FTL is the baby of relativity.

I lost you here. Are you familiar with Minkowsky space? If you are, then you can understand me when I say that wormholes do not actually make anything travel faster than light.

It's the only theory that doesn't violate speed of light limit and doesn't involve mythical wormholes.

Wormholes were predicted from Einstein's equations. It is also Einstein's statement that nothing can travel faster than light. So you decided to take one part of General Relativity theory (impossibility of FTL) but ignore another (possibility of wormholes)?

What are you on? Like really? It is not even clear either neutrino is its own antiparticle, it's really hard to detect neutrinos, but here you are knowing the exact ratio of both.

Do you know anything at all about neutrino experiments? We know neutrino's mass with excellent precision, we know neutrinos' distribution in the universe with decent precision, and we very well know that the discrepancy between matter-antimatter is much smaller for neutrinos simply because they VERY rare to annihilate with other particles and that small discrepancy that existed shortly after Big Bang and was eliminated for usual particles by their interaction is still present for neutrinos.

Trust me, I have been working in neutrino physics for 3 years, so I am simply out of your league here.

Then read more about it - it's explained by science.

It is not "read more". I understand certain theoretical statements given in popular journals. What I don't understand is how exactly cosmological equations for early moments after the Big Bang lead to this inequality. Also, and that so far hasn't been explained by anyone, is why there is more matter than anti-matter. Why not vice versa? Why electrons with negative charge are dominant, not the positrons with positive charge? So far people explain it by luck, but it is a quite stupid explanation.

Popular science says a lot of things that do not have actually anything to do with real science. I can see from your posts easily that you know something about the things you write about, you read about them in some journals or watched some popular programs on TV. It is excellent, it is important to have some knowledge of these things today. But, please, don't get into the details you are not familiar with. I recommend you to take statements like "nothing can travel faster than light" with a certain skepticism. Scientists understand what this statement means and what assumptions we make when we say it, but people outside astrophysics and joint fields usually just take this statement as a dogma. Trust me, Einstein himself understood quite well that this statement can be proved wrong in the future, and he humored about it a lot. It works for now today because it helps us explain certain things we observe, just as Newton mechanics helped explain what we saw in our surroundings at his time. But Newton didn't know anything about electricity or atomic physics, and Einstein didn't know about neutrino oscillations - it is absolutely clear that there are many things we don't know about the world yet and will probably encounter soon! Technological revolution can happen at any moment: say, they raise the energies on LHC to 12 TeV, find some completely new heavy particle which will prove to be an example of Dark Matter, then we, using this knowledge, will start seeing Dark Matter anywhere - and, boom, in a matter of years we will have essentially infinite source of energy. FTL speed can be discovered as well, once we are able to experiment with energies that violate General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together and that will lead to completely new physics, such as String Theory, or Brane Universe, or whatever else they theorize about. And such energies exist, for example, in theoretical Black Holes: near the so called "singularity" things happen well beyond our current understanding, and both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics stop making sense there.

---

Interesting how Mass Effect discussion came to scientific discussion.

[Hubbl3]

Interesting how Mass Effect discussion came to scientific discussion.

Yeah. I really thank you for these posts, very interesting :>

I'm "only" a chemist and theoretical physics is way over my head, but it is really interesting!

[Deleted]

1. No, but it's close.

We are close to proving multiverses?
Then it wont be long before we travel to them.

Excellent, then i can band up with the other "me"s.

Oh great Allfather, let there be lamias...

[Deleted]

That does seem like a great plan.
Great job Muzual, i didnt think of that.

[Adam Jensen]

I'm no brony, but I'd watch the shit out of My Little Krogan

[Nazrark]

I'm no brony, but I'd watch the shit out of My Little Krogan

At least someone would actually die every episode. But then the stronger brother would come along for revenge. It's DBZ all over again.

[Deleted]

Why not Happy Tuchanka Friends?

[May90]

We are close to proving multiverses?
Then it wont be long before we travel to them.

Well, we cannot "prove" it in common sense. By "proof" I meant that there are certain theoretical models that "almost" work and describe what we observe quite well, not violating approximations of our modern science. Of course it is impossible to "prove" multiverses since (again, according to these models - who knows how it all really is?) there is no way to contact other universes directly, and we cannot measure energy of the entire universe to notice that it has decreased or increased due to interaction with other universes. This model, however, can be useful in studying certain things happening in our own universe, such as Law of Energy Conservation or Momentum Conservation...

[Deleted]

You forgot one very important detail.
"For now."

I missed the Mars programme so im taking the first portal to other dimensions.

[Durandro]

So, part of the 'Leaving Earth' theme from ME3 was used in tonight's episode of Top Gear.

Interesting. Discuss.

[Drakiru]

Completed my 3rd full playthrough yesterday while doing all story dlc(except Omega).
I must say I was pleasently surprised by the Citadel DLC. I though it would just be overpriced like the others but I really felt like it was worth it.
The other DLC are still really good but a bit too expensive in my opinion.
Also Particle Rifle with extra ammo, piercing mod and ammo power is op. killling Brutes and ravager in like 2 sec.
Only problem I had with my soldier was banshees because of the barrier but everything else died so fast.

What's everyone favourite class btw?
I played
ME1: soldier, infitrator, adept, vanguard
me2: soldier, adept, sentinel, vanguard
me3: sentinel, adept, soldier

I'd say my favourite was Adept in all 3 games.

[zealo]

Adept in all 3 games but i tend to rush past ME1 on casual difficulty due to the length of the grind visiting all planets available, full insanity mode in the other 2.

That class in combination with the synergy using Liara brings is so broken its not even funny. >.<

[Deleted]

Adept is by far my favourite to play with as well, I feel like if I'm not playing an Adept I'm not experiencing the whole game :P

[Kaelwryn]

Idk why but I always pick Infiltrator. Something about dat cloak and sniping. Vanguard is pretty fun too.

[Dezerte]

Adept was crazy in ME1, in ME2 they became more balanced (because face it, they were very powerful) and then I switched to Engineer which I also played in ME3. I usually go for the support/minion type of character in RPGs so Engineer was a pretty decent fit.

[Deleted]

I usually go for the support/minion type of character in RPGs.

You bring shame to king and fatherland.

[May90]

I've completed all games on insanity with Adept, Engineer and Infiltrator and ME1, ME2 with Soldier. Going to play Vanguard the next time, and I will probably skip Sentinel altogether since he doesn't seem that different from Adept and Engineer.

Some thoughts.
(I assume you are playing ME1 the first time after installation, so you do not have any unlocked weapons, and also you tweak configuration file to start playing on Insanity right away - I always do it since it's the only way to make the game, at least, somewhat challenging)

Infiltrator - By far my favorite class. In ME1 Sniper Rifles are useless and tech powers are very weak, so I ended up playing a "reduced" version of Soldier with Pistol; the game is very easy though, so the only difficulty I had was with the Pinnacle Station DLC; those two Hunt missions were a pain to do with Pistol. But in ME2 and, especially, in ME3 Infiltrator with the Widow rifle just destroys everything in 2-3 shots: Harbinger dies in 3 shots, Brute in 4, Scion also in 4, I think. Cloaking field makes Shepard almost impossible to kill in most cases: once you are stripped of your shields, simply use the Cloak an run away, hind behind cover, shoot and wait for Cloak to regenerate.

Soldier - Very boring class, in my opinion. It is probably the strongest class in ME1 (contested with Adept) due to ability to use Assault Rifles that have a mind blowing DPS. And improved regeneration and ability to war Heavy armor make Shepard unstoppable juggernaut. In ME2 this class is not very comfortable to play since it relies only on weapons, and if you, like me, are terrible with aiming, then you will have a hard time against fast-moving enemies, even with Adrenaline Rush. If you love FPS genre though, I think, you will enjoy this class.

Adept - This class is just insane in ME1 since a lot of crowd control abilities let you disable nearly all the enemies in any situation, even bosses: just take Wrex (or Kaidan, but I hate him and never use him) and Liara with you, and most of the enemies won't be able to shoot during the entire battle. And Barrier lets you endure a very heavy damage. However, in ME2 this class is, probably, the weakest among all classes. Nearly all enemies have shields/barriers, and biotic powers are useless against such enemies, except for Singularity that can slow them down to let your companions strip them off their defenses. If an enemy gets close to you, you are dead. Adept seems to be relying on his companions more than any other classes, so you will do a lot of positioning and issue lots of commands. I liked this style of play, but it also gave me a lot of frustrating moments, when the enemy is nearby and you just have no means to deal with him. Eventually you will be able to get the bonus power from Tali that will let Shepard strip the enemies' shields as well, and since that time the game becomes much more easy, but still, managing your companions is the key; and if both your companions are dead, Adept usually doesn't last long.

Engineer - Now, that is a weird class indeed. In ME1 it is VERY weak: tech powers do not do any significant damage and are effective only against Geth and clustered Husks, so you will be relying on Pistol. The situation looks quite similar to Infiltrator, only you can't wear Medium Armor and you don't have any defensive abilities, so you are very easy to kill, have low damage output and have no crowd control. Like with Adept in ME2, you will be relying on your companions much, so I strongly recommend always taking two biotics with you to throw enemies around so they don't shoot your glass Shepard (again, I follow this advice only after discovering Liara: I hate Karth Onasi... sorry, Kaidan, so I usually take Wrex and Tali before, Tali for opening containers).
In ME2 Engineer plays much like Adept, especially after you get the bonus power and take any biotic power for it. You can strip shields more effectively than Adept, so your companions should be focused more on biotic powers - and, yes, again you will depend on your companions all the time. It is quite the same in ME3, although there tech abilities are finally strong against something other than shields as well, so it is easier to play.

I can say that I enjoyed all 4 classes, except for Soldier in ME2 (I hate FPS!). Infiltrator was the most diverse and resourceful, in my opinion, while Adept and Engineer were classic "hide behind cover, use abilities before enemies get close, manage your companions carefully" kind of play. I am yet to try Adept - it seems to be fun to finally be able to charge into enemies and actually shoot them in the face, rather than sitting behind cover like a coward.