Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Question about weapons. 200+ years in the future.
  • Subject: Question about weapons. 200+ years in the future.
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Question about weapons. 200+ years in the future.

The less than a second latency of online play is a better system to play off of than more health.

You realize this system is just as host based, right? because if you're fighting host, or someone with a better connection to host, and you each start firing at the same time, his BULLETS will register first, giving him slightly more health if the melees happen at the same time.

So would you rather have the BS of both, or just one?

-HaVOk1228

This question has been raised and will be continued to be raised for as long as people explore works of fantasy/ sci-fi. The weapons of halo represent an aesthetic or gameplay decision over actual predictions of what the future will hold. Yes it is likely that such weapons will be rendered obsolete in such an advanced future but you must remember that the development of more futuristic weapons has as many resiting as supporting factors.

For example, modern day firearms advance at the rate they do because people invest time and money into creating these (gruesome) tools that get much use. Now consider for a moment how most warefare might take place in the space age. If you were more concerned with simply killing foes and not so much killing specific individuals then you would do better to invest in better/ more spaceships and large scale space based weapon systems. While small arms and ground vehicles may hold some use, you would swiftly find that a single space bomber or battle ship could eliminate most human space colonies or spaceships much more easily than even a multitude of infantry with even the best small arms (who are still reliant on space ships to either be transported or simply receive support. Thus as space ships and etc. become more useful you would find more armies etc. not being as invested in small arms. You could spend a couple million designing a new line of rifles or rockets for your occasional ground skirmishes or you could just design a new flight control system that would instantly reap rewards.

Alternatively even in our modern day we find ample examples of people simply making do with even outdated technology. The US airforce recently gave up on a laser weapon that was suppose to be mounted on aircraft because the costs were simply too high and the use (at that phase) not all that remarkable when compared to current missile/ bomb technologies. While countless armies across the world continue to use AK-47s for their high availability and relatively comparable performance to even the most high tech of weapons. An example of how this could play out in the space age is one soldier suddenly realizing that all he has to do to kill another soldier in space or in any alien environment where a vacuum sealed suit is needed (where a lot of fighting might occur) is to simply pierce his space suite with any type of weapon, thus even a civil war revolver would be as effective in space.

While the heavy combat against the covies on the ground may prove the need for small arms development it is important to remember that the humans usually win most ground engagements, even with their far inferior technology. What they often lose are the space battles that then allow the covies to glass the planets from orbit. So if I were a commander in the UNSC evaluating how to use my dwindling resources I would be thinking of how to take down those covie space ship before I gave a darn about giving my (rather useless) ground forces another toy that they don't need (they already perform quite well).

Even before the covies pressed human resources and decisions there could understandably be countless arguments against the invention of more high tech weaponry. Metals used in guns and ammunition, and even other components could be scavenged up on any backwater colony world, while precise parts (lenses, special battery packs, etc) needed to make a laser rifle would require expertise and resources you may not find as available across the human empire. There are no doubt some people working on such things (the gauss hog/ spartan laser/ the spartan's own armor) but far too many things conspire to make these things the exception rather than the norm.

  • 11.06.2009 10:51 AM PDT

_______
-...you are a gigantic female genitalia sanitizing apparatus.

Understand this principle:

People thought Star Trek communicators would come 200 years in the future.

The reality: They came rather early, plus we have video call now.

Think about it: Most Sci-Fi goes too far in the future with too little technology.

Battle Armors aren't that far ahead. We already have machines to reprocess urine into drinkable water, we already have bomb squad armors that recently were unveiled to protect a person from a nearby powerful explosion, plus they have a limited feature that regulates body temperature.

Genetics are developing a bit slower due to certain ethical restrictions, but robotic prostheses can already practically make a cyborg.

Comon now. If anything, Halo's pessimistic.

  • 11.06.2009 11:04 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Fos Tis Krisis
Technically the M16 would take roughly 13BILLION shots to kill a Spartan, Elite, or Brute. If the BR does it in 4, they must be doing something right.


Its a matter of kinetic energy, F=MA, so a small 5 gram 5.56mm(.223rem)x45mm shell does not provide much, whereas the battle rifle fires a 9.5mmx75mm KAT round which i believe has a velocity about 300m/s higher than an M16 and a mass of roughly 20grams, so F(net)=(20)x(1200) instead of (5)x(900). That's how the inertia of kinetic energy weapons works, whether the energy comes from a MAC coil or an explosive compound like gunpowder.

  • 11.06.2009 11:06 AM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

I always reasoned it to military necessity. The "if it aint broke don't fix it" mentality applies very well to the Halo universe. To me it seems that projectile weaponry has never needed to be one-upped. Keep in mind that the longer you work with one medium the better you can make it. Sure lasers/plasma weaponry is more powerful but I highly doubt you can get a hand held plasma weapon to head shot someone from 1000 yards. Even the covenant don't use plasma for sniping.

  • 11.06.2009 11:07 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Legendary Member

Posted by: BTE
Posted by: Xharpan
it doese'nt look nextgen , looks good but not nextgen
If by next-gen you mean crappy, dark and colorless, I agree. It doesnt look next-gen at all.

Posted by: Spelbreker NL
Posted by: iCheat
Some crazy future technology like Slip Space, Spartan armor, and they're still using a bullet hose Assault Rifle?

MJOLNIR armor with recharging energy suits that regulate body temperature, damage, reprocess urine into drinkable fluid....and Master Chief is still firing a Battle Rifle?

if he wasnt the gameplay would suck hard!


Agreed with this post. Sure, chances are that 500 years in the future we will have some sick weapons using lazers that could pierce through anything, but lets face it, how fun would a game be if it was like that?

  • 11.06.2009 11:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: UnSe3N
It is highly unlikely that by that time in the future we will still be using gas/explosive powered projectile weapons. Currently our military has in use laser weapons mounted on satelites, humvees, and airborn vehicles. This is not futurist sci fi, this is our current technology. The U.S. Navy has tested a railgun that accelerates a 3.2 kg projectile to seven times the speed of sound. Its only a matter of time before we are able to condense the technology enough to utilize laser and electro magnetic hand held weapons.

If you don't believe me do some research on laser weapons, cutters, rail guns, etc. We already have these weapons. I believe within this century they will become hand held.


That may very well be true, but keep in mind we do lack inertial dampening technology and therefore i fail to see rocket launcher being replaced by handheld railguns just for the simple fact that the physics are against you in development, for you would need to design some sort of inertial compensator to work on principle of impulse, and therefore something would have to spread the recoil impulse from the acceleration taking only milliseconds over a few seconds otherwise such weapons would blow our arms off, and railgun tech doesn't make any sense for calibers below 1 inch (2.5cm) and you still need to carry batteries AND the kinetic rounds.

Also on the topic of laser weapons, for a laser to do any sort of damage its energy impulse has to be within the 20kw or greater range and good luck getting any more than five pulses out of a capacitor the size of a car battery, the biggest problem over the last 10 years has not been our ability to create devices that can use and modulate that kind of energy, but it is the ability to store large amounts of electrical energy effectively.

[Edited on 11.06.2009 11:20 AM PST]

  • 11.06.2009 11:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"You must be mistaken, Reclaimer. I've met your makers, and they don't even know your name..."

Because if a guy from 500 years in your future can kill you with the equivalent of a mop and bucket in his day, you really deserve the lose.

  • 11.06.2009 11:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Sgt_UberGrunt
Posted by: UnSe3N
It is highly unlikely that by that time in the future we will still be using gas/explosive powered projectile weapons. Currently our military has in use laser weapons mounted on satelites, humvees, and airborn vehicles. This is not futurist sci fi, this is our current technology. The U.S. Navy has tested a railgun that accelerates a 3.2 kg projectile to seven times the speed of sound. Its only a matter of time before we are able to condense the technology enough to utilize laser and electro magnetic hand held weapons.

If you don't believe me do some research on laser weapons, cutters, rail guns, etc. We already have these weapons. I believe within this century they will become hand held.


That may very well be true, but keep in mind we do lack inertial dampening technology and therefore i fail to see rocket launcher being replaced by handheld railguns just for the simple fact that the physics are against you in development, for you would need to design some sort of inertial compensator to work on principle of impulse, and therefore something would have to spread the recoil impulse from the acceleration taking only milliseconds over a few seconds otherwise such weapons would blow our arms off, and railgun tech doesn't make any sense for calibers below 1 inch (2.5cm) and you still need to carry batteries AND the kinetic rounds.

Also on the topic of laser weapons, for a laser to do any sort of damage its energy impulse has to be within the 20kw or greater range and good luck getting any more than five pulses out of a capacitor the size of a car battery, the biggest problem over the last 10 years has not been our ability to create devices that can use and modulate that kind of energy, but it is the ability to store large amounts of electrical energy effectively.


The following was taken from a physics article on rail guns:

Large scale tests performed by the US Navy of a prototype rail gun involved a 3.35 Kg projectile with a muzzle velocity of 2520 meters/sec. This gives a momentum in excess of 8000 Kg-meters/sec, enough to send a 200 Kg rail gun backward at over 40 meters per second. A conventional gun with similar performance would require a massive and extensive recoil absorption apparatus. There is none needed with a rail gun.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about in these matters. A railgun produces extremely low amounts of recoil when compared to conventional explosive weapons. That is because a rail gun works by creating electromagnetic currents to force a projectile to incredible speeds. In the majority of the designs the projectile will not even touch the barell when shot. There are several papers you should read to enlighten yourself, most of which are written by naval scientists.

It is evident that you have little to no knowledge about this subject so instead of citing various articles and papers on brakethroughs in laser technology and energy storage I will spend my time doing things more productive.

Please spend the time to know what you are talking about before you try to rebuttal for the sake of looking intelligent.

  • 11.06.2009 6:58 PM PDT

Halo: Heretic or Hero---An Elite's Story
Choose your own destiny

FanFicFactor
Forged in the Flames of Passion, go forth and represent!

Try 540 something years.

Wait...that didn't help matters much, did it :)

  • 11.06.2009 7:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Wertuk
  • user homepage:

ok so maybe the AR is more powerful than anything today but really, hundreds of years later but there is no full auto gun with power/accuracy?

  • 11.06.2009 7:27 PM PDT

Churros

The only thing that sucks for Halo human weapons is that the Magnum is too slow and very close range. Weapons should be reasonable, but realistic like in Halo 3 ODST.

  • 11.06.2009 7:48 PM PDT

Say hello to any good modern sci-fi. Unless it's a space-opera (think star trek/ mass effect) or retro (believe it or not, in sci-fi years, Star Wars), then they'll use bullets.

  • 11.06.2009 7:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

well bullets are stronger than plasma, thats what i think, becuz they actually penetrate through skin and flesh, like take a look at killzone 2, its supposed to be futureistic, yet they use weapons looking almost exactly as existing weapons of today, like for crying out loud, why the hell is a famas in a game like killzone, where thers space travel and stuff, and by the way this is halo reach forum this belongs somewhere else

[Edited on 11.06.2009 8:55 PM PST]

  • 11.06.2009 8:52 PM PDT

Wherever you roam
so far from home
you'll be safe from peril
life threatening and terrible
if you avoid David Powel
and keep track of your towel.

Sure, realistically we'd probably be using microwave guns capable of vaporizing a fully geared Marine within 30 seconds.

But ballistic guns are quite frankly extremely cool and fun.

  • 11.06.2009 9:06 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Bullets aren't stronger than plasma. Plasma is superheated gas that is cooked up to the temperature of the sun. I'd rather get hit by a bullet and have a chance to survive.

  • 11.06.2009 9:08 PM PDT

Posted by: Tulsk
Bullets aren't stronger than plasma. Plasma is superheated gas that is cooked up to the temperature of the sun. I'd rather get hit by a bullet and have a chance to survive.

You could probably survive a plasma hit. It would vaporize (large) parts of a limb, or most likely kill you in the torso. With plasma, it hurts a lot but because it is hot, it would cauterize the wound so there would be little to no blood loss. The pain would remove, at least temporarily, an individual from the battle.

With bullets, they are made to tumble around in the body, tearing up and mangling organs and tissue as they make their way out. The best bullet goes in, but doesn't come out, rather it disintegrates inside. The bullet also can temporarily remove someone from the fight. However, if they get drugged up enough, only a larger round can stop them with one hit.

All in all, bullets are a more humane way to kill someone.

[Edited on 11.07.2009 11:09 AM PST]

  • 11.07.2009 11:08 AM PDT

Awnser: UNSC knows its not econimically feasable to make expensive weapons that are up to date with possible technologies. They can't afford uber guns. Rather they go by the notion Cheap quantity > expensive quality

"let no man be without a scorpian"

  • 11.07.2009 11:12 AM PDT

Winning or losing doesn't really matter much to me. I play for fun, and nothing you can say will change that. Sure, I have a low K/D, sure, I have a low rank in Halo 3, but I really don't care. It's not like it actually means anything. It's a number. And for the record, opinion and fact are two completely different things.

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
I always reasoned it to military necessity. The "if it aint broke don't fix it" mentality applies very well to the Halo universe. To me it seems that projectile weaponry has never needed to be one-upped. Keep in mind that the longer you work with one medium the better you can make it. Sure lasers/plasma weaponry is more powerful but I highly doubt you can get a hand held plasma weapon to head shot someone from 1000 yards. Even the covenant don't use plasma for sniping.
uuuuuuhhhhhhh Particle Beam Rifle thanks try again.

  • 11.07.2009 11:16 AM PDT

The game would be boring if everything shot plasma and laser beams.

  • 11.07.2009 11:16 AM PDT

"ESE SNIPER"

"Bullet hoses" are cheap, and can be mass produced cheaply. Think of gasoline cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars. Sure they are better, but can not be massed produced cheaply yet to allow for mass production.

  • 11.07.2009 11:26 AM PDT

Winning or losing doesn't really matter much to me. I play for fun, and nothing you can say will change that. Sure, I have a low K/D, sure, I have a low rank in Halo 3, but I really don't care. It's not like it actually means anything. It's a number. And for the record, opinion and fact are two completely different things.

The abolition of all forms of currency would solve so many of the world's problems. All it does is give rich people power and make poor people poor.

But of course the majority of society does not realize this, and likeley will not for several hundred years.

  • 11.07.2009 11:32 AM PDT

This is one of the moments where you get to say: "IT'S A VIDEO GAME."

I would be expecting lasers in 200 years, none the less one that charges every 5 seconds and only shoots 5 times.

  • 11.07.2009 11:33 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3