Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Poll [20 votes]: General Products Hull vs. Forerunner Alloy
  • Poll [20 votes]: General Products Hull vs. Forerunner Alloy
Subject: General Products Hull vs. Forerunner Alloy

I don't care. I really don't.

Poll: General Products Hull vs. Forerunner Alloy  [closed]
General Products Hull (Known Space):  10%
(2 Votes)
Forerunner Alloy:  90%
(18 Votes)
Total Votes: 20

Which is more durable when it comes to taking kinetic and explosive forces? Which will take more damage and physical strain? Not including antimatter of course (GP hull loses instantly).

  • 12.10.2010 2:28 PM PDT

I'm going to say Forerunner Alloy because they're good at a lot of things, maybe Alloys is one of them...

  • 12.10.2010 2:46 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: Grizzwizz
I'm going to say Forerunner Alloy because they're good at a lot of things, maybe Alloys is one of them...


But I've seen Forerunner Alloy be destroyed by nukes, whereas a GP hull can take, out of everything I've read with Known Space, everything besides antimatter.

  • 12.10.2010 4:42 PM PDT


Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: Grizzwizz
I'm going to say Forerunner Alloy because they're good at a lot of things, maybe Alloys is one of them...


But I've seen Forerunner Alloy be destroyed by nukes, whereas a GP hull can take, out of everything I've read with Known Space, everything besides antimatter.


when was forerunner alloy destroyed by nukes? Thev closest it came was the Shield World exploding in Wars...and thats kinda a big deal.

Normally, I'd say the GP hulls (being indestructable and all) HOWEVER it is well in the range of Forerunner weapony to have an anti-matter bomb, and they could--being a tier 1 species--craft ultra-dense materials the likes of which we would probably deem impossible.

That and GP hull occupants are susceptible to laser damage on the visible spectrum and to high impact forces (such as a direct MAC hit.)

Considering the Forerunners used lasers to cut other ultra-dense ships clean in half, I'd say the Forerunner-super-alloy is superior, in that it is built to withstand weapons on an extreme scale of any type, be them lasers or anti-matter bombs.

[Edited on 12.10.2010 5:13 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2010 5:12 PM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

Obviously Forerunner.

  • 12.10.2010 5:13 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: ROBERTO jh

when was forerunner alloy destroyed by nukes? Thev closest it came was the Shield World exploding in Wars...and thats kinda a big deal.


We've never seen Forerunner alloy in game be destroyed due to limits on the engine (although the MACs on the Dreadnaut seemed to do little, we never saw it again up close and it may very well have nearly been destroyed). In Halo: Legends, the only other time we actually saw the alloy take damage, we saw it pretty much fall apart at the slightest overstress.

Normally, I'd say the GP hulls (being indestructable and all) HOWEVER it is well in the range of Forerunner weapony to have an anti-matter bomb, and they could--being a tier 1 species--craft ultra-dense materials the likes of which we would probably deem impossible.

The only planet we have seen as confirmed that the Forerunners moved was the moon in the middle of the Ark. The pupeteers moved five planets, and they are paranoid nuts who only do what is necessary.
So in Forerunner deeming it seems probable the Pupeteers would be counted as Tier 1 as well Forerunners.

That and GP hull occupants are susceptible to laser damage on the visible spectrum and to high impact forces (such as a direct MAC hit.)

I'm talking about the hull itself, the occupants surviving is optional. This isn't a "who would win". It's a direct comparison.

Considering the Forerunners used lasers to cut other ultra-dense ships clean in half, I'd say the Forerunner-super-alloy is superior, in that it is built to withstand weapons on an extreme scale of any type, be them lasers or anti-matter bombs.

First, it'd have to the densest alloy imaginable to survive every kind of laser impact (which it's not as seen by them being destroyed and they aren't insanely heavy) or refractive, which they aren't either.
And nothing can survive antimatter without anihallating except other antimatter, which the hulls are definitely not.

The reason Forerunner alloy seems better is becuase you can't destroy it in-game, and that's becuase the restrictions in the game engine; Sentinels and Monitors are almost certainly made of the same alloy (if you can build a 10,000 km ring you can build your artificial armies) and yet are destroyed with little effort.
I think they're close, but GP just from what I've heard is better. Maybe the Forerunner Trilogy will prove me wrong, but untill then I stand by my choice.

  • 12.10.2010 6:17 PM PDT


Posted by: Venator82

[quote]Posted by: ROBERTO jh

when was forerunner alloy destroyed by nukes? Thev closest it came was the Shield World exploding in Wars...and thats kinda a big deal.


"We've never seen Forerunner alloy in game be destroyed due to limits on the engine (although the MACs on the Dreadnaut seemed to do little, we never saw it again up close and it may very well have nearly been destroyed). In Halo: Legends, the only other time we actually saw the alloy take damage, we saw it pretty much fall apart at the slightest overstress."

(block quote fail :/)

seriously, what are you talking about "slightest overstress?"

The weapons that destroyed those Flood-Forerunner ships in legends were weapons that could destroy stars (the combined firepower of a fleet) that is in no way "slightest" overstress.

In terms of the Puppateers moving worlds, they put a 2 AU dyson planet inside slipspace (or hyperspace in Known Space terminology) THAT is -blam!- ing impressive (of course, moving a fleet of worlds at close to lightspeed is also damned impressive but I don't recall them having ever hiding a super-world in another dimensional plane.)

But then again, they're cowards.

Even still, I know this wasn't a versus thread, I was merely analyzing the pros and cons of the GP hull performance when compared with the weapons the Forerunners would need to defend against (as we know little other then their hulls classification of "super-dense") And its inability to defend against lasers is a pretty big deal when you're talking about defense requirements.

[Edited on 12.10.2010 6:35 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2010 6:35 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.


Posted by: ROBERTO jh

seriously, what are you talking about "slightest overstress?"


They were hit by lasers. Unless, you know, they came up with super-lasers to go through those hulls in a universe that uses realistic and established scientific theories, with super lasers not being real theories at all.
A GP hull can take a laser easy, it's just the occupants that won't live depending. :)

What I find is that Halo, a universe where although the tech dwarfs ours, it compares little (yes, even the Forerunners contrary to popular belief) to other sci-fi universes and yet many think Halo is better, either becuase they like the straight-forward story of the Chief in the main trilogy or they have been playing it since they were 5 and have no other sci-fi in their life.
You don't seemk to fit those bills, and if you are then you don't show it.

But look, there are 7 votes and only three people commented, and only yours introduced pros and cons. :P


[Edited on 12.10.2010 6:48 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2010 6:47 PM PDT


Posted by: Venator82

Posted by: ROBERTO jh

seriously, what are you talking about "slightest overstress?"


What I find is that Halo, a universe where although the tech dwarfs ours, it compares little (yes, even the Forerunners contrary to popular belief) to other sci-fi universes and yet many think Halo is better,


*sigh*

While yes, the UNSC and even Covenant use "realistic" sci-fi elements, the Forerunners is where the "science-fantasy" part comes in.

Do you know of any real theories where we could use lasers to cause a star to go supenova? Or are you not reading the part where I say "Forerunner ship weapons could cause stars to go supernova?"

Because it doesn't seem like it, merely seems you're ignoring the unrealstic aspects of Halo for the sake of keeping a false image of realism in an area of the Haloverse where realism doesn't exist.

I know nothing of any theories regarding using a star as a stellar grenade in real life and if you mean other sci-fi is "better" do you mean in technology advancement?

Because if thats the case, Halo easily compares to some of the other sci-fis out there...such as Mass Effect, Known Space (in some regards, mostly in terms of the Forerunners), Stargate/Wars(despite the disgusting amount of number discrepancies in Star Wars that either make no frigging sense whatsoever or have been proven wrong on countless occasions)/Trek(anything with a "star" in it). While some aspects in all of those trump the equal technology in the known Haloverse (note: known) it doesn't mean the whole universe pwns the Haloverse.

While "Contomporary Halo" (as Frankie calls it) is grounded heavily in reality, Ancient Halo is not, and is more akin to the Space-Opra style Star Wars and Star Trek dabble in (especially when the Precursors are thrown into the mix and then you start dealing with the almost literal "magic" of sci-fi)

For example: the already explained stellar grenade trick, the ability to put worlds inside another dimensional plane of reality, giving civilians power armor 4 times as powerful as MJOLNIR (read the terminals) while giving standard soldiers armor 6 times as powerful AT LEAST to MJOLNIR to ensure an omniscient mega-parasite doesn't kill them, the ability to traverse the galaxy almost instantly, etc. (with more coming when The Trilogy comes out)

HOWEVER, I do note that Greg Bear is like Larry Niven: he uses real world science to explain the impossible (and, if he is like Niven at all, has a certain taste for the absolutely rediculous-made-simple) so Bear will most likely use science to back up the reality of the Forerunner tech; that does not make it any less magical.

Hell, give either Niven or Bear a Star Wars novel with SW tech, and they could figure out how to explain it scientifically (despite the "official" numbers in Star Wars being grossly inaccurate, illogical and impossible, as I said before), but that doesn't mean Star Wars isn't more science-fantasy any-less then the Forerunners are.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.

  • 12.10.2010 7:13 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

UWG

My jokes, so I don't lose them (ignore this):
ZedFish's Opinion on Sgt. Foley.
ZedFish's Forerunner Rickroll.

The GP Hull seems to hold the title.
Impervious to anything but Visible light, Gravity and Antimatter.
As opposed to Forerunner Alloy, which could probably be destroyed by an explosion big enough. Like a whole bunch of nukes.

  • 12.10.2010 7:16 PM PDT

yeah.... of course I know what your talking about

I think I read somewhere that forerunner structures or w/e could easily be destroyed by covenant weapons, something to do with the fact that the covenant plasma is low powered??

please clarify If I am wrong.

  • 12.10.2010 7:17 PM PDT


Posted by: Skulljambo187
I think I read somewhere that forerunner structures or w/e could easily be destroyed by covenant weapons, something to do with the fact that the covenant plasma is low powered??

please clarify If I am wrong.


not the ships, the ships were built to withstand power rivaling supernovae (of course, thats with shields as well) but the smaller Onyx Sentinel shields could be duped by slow moving projectiles; maybe thats where you got the thought from.

  • 12.10.2010 7:19 PM PDT

I don't care. I really don't.

Posted by: ROBERTO jh

Fine, I understand your point. But I still think GP is better!!

[Edited on 12.11.2010 11:04 AM PST]

  • 12.11.2010 10:33 AM PDT