Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Master Chief vs. Noble Six
  • Subject: Master Chief vs. Noble Six
Subject: Master Chief vs. Noble Six
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Arsenal, I asked if there was mention about SPECIFICALLY were Grace was.

You provided "behind them" Nothing else. Partly so my memory is clear, partly to see if Chief let his teammate stand in the open. However you danced around it constantly. You see, I wanted to know if she had been in cover or was in the open. You simply refused to straight up quote or answer with ANYTHING that'd solve that question. I still am pretty sure when Chief goes back to her corpse, she's actually in the open and not close to cover. Might not detract from him but it's still something I would love to have clear for memory. Though my method wouldn't exactly have gotten her killed, as they'd be in cover in a way that the brutes couldn't get behind him.

I also never said Chief had no H2H skill. Just said it wasn't his strong point.


So to be clear, I'm going off memory, I asked for something, you danced around it and gave parts of the information, and not the entire bloody thing. Coma informed me there wasn't much more information, I thank her because she told me that as opposed to you who did not, and you get pissed at me? I asked for before (which you gave) during (which you gave... after a while), and after/when they checked the corpse (which you... did not give at all). I was asking for all possible data to determine Grace's location at time of death and all you give was "Behind them."

On topic, The subject of chief being in a team is actually a point. 1 vs 1, we have A (six): operating in his/her preferred zone, where they work best. and we have B (chief): operating OUTSIDE his preferred zone, where his strongest points (leadership) are useless and he must rely on himself.

Six has a clear advantage in this area.


1) I answered to the best of my power by giving direct quotes. I "dodged around the question" because that is all the book gave me. I supplied you with as much information as possible via direct quotes, but somehow this makes me "dodging the question" and "refusing" to give you what you want.

2) Well obviously not specialist levels, but the way people have used examples, they make MC out to be someone who has little H2H skills.

3) The only information I didn't give you was a tiny paragraph that basically desribed the Brute rushing John being a bullet sponge. Otherwise I gave you the exact picture. I did not "dance around it." I gave you all the relevant information within my power. The part about MC checking her body gives no real indication on Grace's whereabouts, which is why I didn't include it. All it says is that he knelt beside her body, no indication of where she was at all.

4) Except he has transitioned very well to "lone-wolf" dynamics, to the point of fighting the Flood on his own. But like I told Cobra, in a 1v1 fight, relying on team dynamics doesn't come into play really. Now if this was Master Chief vs a group of enemies and 6 vs a group of enemies in a race or effectiveness type match, then 6 would most defianately win, as that is what he is trained for, and Master Chief would be at a disadvantage without a team.

4

  • 12.15.2011 6:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: superiorarsenal

Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: superiorarsenal
1)In a 1v1 scenario, it wouldn't matter whether he used to have a squad or not. Maybe if it was 1v2 or greater, but 1v1 is just each combatants skills against one another, not something that requires squad support.

2)Deadliest warrior is horribly unscientific.


1. It is still something to consider. If you are trained from the beginning to work in a squad, but it is removed from you, you're combat effectiveness may suffer. Six probably went through it from her transition from standard S-III to Ackerson's (<conjecture) personal grim reaper. However, she would be more used to it than Chief.

2. It is, but it lays out some great ground rules and if we had some hard data, I'd love to have the sim they use.


1) What I meant is that Master Chief's squad training doesn't really account for anything. If he is only fighting 1 enemy, he can put all his focus on that. The squad comes in when there are multiple enemies and he is used to having someone watching his back.

2)That program would be wonderful, though it would need some tweaking.



All fair points. However, besides the thyroid implant, what other advantage does Chief have? Not much.

Chief was trained to fight the Insurrectionists and had to learn on the job hwo to fight the Covenant.

Six was taught both.

Chief was trained by Mendez and underwent very tough training. I'd wager Six, who was also taught by Mendez AND a Spartan-II, went though more streamlined training.

When it comes to the amount of years, Chief does have an edge. That said, if we have a 20 year Green Beret vet go against a 40 year Green Beret vet. does that mean the 40 year vet will win? Fairly bad example, but you get the point.


See, you and I agree that this is a very close fight, I'm not contesting that. But if you think about it, the Thyroid does give a significant advantage in strength(Kind of). Not only does it increase muscle density, but it causes growth. Growth equals more weight. S-IIs (Out of armor) were said to lift 3x their weight (Can't check, lost TFoR). So if MC weighs more than 6, and 6 can also lift 3x his own weight, MC can lift 3x whatever the difference in their weight is more than 6. Then you factor in the MJOLNIR, which also multiplies strength(Not sure to what degree though), then you can actually create a significant strength advantage.

But regardless, it is still a close fight.

  • 12.15.2011 6:26 PM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: superiorarsenal

See, you and I agree that this is a very close fight, I'm not contesting that. But if you think about it, the Thyroid does give a significant advantage in strength(Kind of). Not only does it increase muscle density, but it causes growth. Growth equals more weight. S-IIs (Out of armor) were said to lift 3x their weight (Can't check, lost TFoR). So if MC weighs more than 6, and 6 can also lift 3x his own weight, MC can lift 3x whatever the difference in their weight is more than 6. Then you factor in the MJOLNIR, which also multiplies strength(Not sure to what degree though), then you can actually create a significant strength advantage.

But regardless, it is still a close fight.


But as we saw with Chief's fight with the Brute, muscle isn't everything. It's still a close fight like you say.

  • 12.15.2011 6:28 PM PDT

Im Zack, I got Huge EGO And im The Best. No Need of any more questions, Oh, And i Use capitals ALOT, Lol.

Chief All The Way!!!!!

  • 12.15.2011 6:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: superiorarsenal

See, you and I agree that this is a very close fight, I'm not contesting that. But if you think about it, the Thyroid does give a significant advantage in strength(Kind of). Not only does it increase muscle density, but it causes growth. Growth equals more weight. S-IIs (Out of armor) were said to lift 3x their weight (Can't check, lost TFoR). So if MC weighs more than 6, and 6 can also lift 3x his own weight, MC can lift 3x whatever the difference in their weight is more than 6. Then you factor in the MJOLNIR, which also multiplies strength(Not sure to what degree though), then you can actually create a significant strength advantage.

But regardless, it is still a close fight.


But as we saw with Chief's fight with the Brute, muscle isn't everything. It's still a close fight like you say.


Yes and no. Yes to the fact that muscle isn't everything, but with the Brute, Master Chief severly out-classed it in H2H technique, however NOBLE 6 and Master Chief are not that different in terms of what they've been trained. For H2H technique, I would a slight advantage to 6. Master Chief gets the advantage of strength.

But I'm guessing this will come down to the exact scenario specifics. That essentially is a tie. Scientifically, anything that does not have a 5% or so cushion is variable on the situation. So say Master Chief wins 51% of the time and 6 wins 49% of the time(Or vice versa, this is just an example). THat would be a tie, as any environmental factor, or any factor not able to be accounted for could throw that off. To not have a tie, one side would have to have a 56% or so victory rate.

  • 12.15.2011 6:41 PM PDT

Goku

  • 12.16.2011 3:46 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

This guy vs this guy...
?>???

  • 12.16.2011 4:50 AM PDT

-/
/
|(::)(::)(::)|
|(::)(::)(::)|
|(::)(::)(::)|
|(::)(::)(::)|
[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]

Posted by: FTW 1997
This guy vs this guy...
?>???

Dragon Ball Z is more over the top than Warhammer 40k...

  • 12.16.2011 6:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Xerzaph
Posted by: FTW 1997
This guy vs this guy...
?>???

Dragon Ball Z is more over the top than Warhammer 40k...


Wow lol....unexpected.
Atleast its a cartoon not a game.

  • 12.16.2011 6:20 AM PDT

I think it was grey101 who said this, but whoever said it I agree with them. That Master Chief was the most average of them, doing about 5 out of 10 across the board, whereas most other SPARTANS were one 10 and a 1 in the rest of the categories, the only thing that stood out being his luck (or Angels watching over him.)

  • 12.16.2011 6:55 AM PDT

"I may not be perfect, but always been true."

I love how people say that because the other Spartans are specialists at something (Sniping, Hand to hand, etc) then they must suck at the other areas. Thing is, they are trained to be superb with any type of weapons and techniques, so they are standard by default, like Predkiller said:

5 out of 10

But in this case, this specialists are 5 in everything save for their special skills. Linda would probable be

5 for Hand to Hand
5 for Speed
5 for Heavy Weapons
10 for Sniping
5 for the rest

She wouldn't be a 1 in the other categories, she would just be average on them and superb at sniping.

  • 12.16.2011 8:58 AM PDT

Lmfao!
Posted by: black49
Posted by: xtcarnage15586

Posted by: xXIHAYD0IXx
Master Chief. He's a Spartan II and totally BA. Master Chief vs Entire Noble Team would have been more fair.
Lets be for real. George will have a machine gun turret, Jun a Sniper, Cat an Assault rifle, Carter a DMR, Emile a shotgun, and six any weapon. How possible could chief counter all that at once?
Rocket launcher to the face FTW.

  • 12.16.2011 9:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Time was your ally human. But now it has abandoned you. The Forerunners....have returned. And this tomb... is now yours". - The Didact


Posted by: RKOSNAKE
I love how people say that because the other Spartans are specialists at something (Sniping, Hand to hand, etc) then they must suck at the other areas. Thing is, they are trained to be superb with any type of weapons and techniques, so they are standard by default, like Predkiller said:

5 out of 10

But in this case, this specialists are 5 in everything save for their special skills. Linda would probable be

5 for Hand to Hand
5 for Speed
5 for Heavy Weapons
10 for Sniping
5 for the rest

She wouldn't be a 1 in the other categories, she would just be average on them and superb at sniping.


Deosn't matters if they got the same training, skills will still vary.

But you're right,a Spartan is good at everything but it's just that on some categories he/she will do less

So the rating is more like:

10 for sniping
8 for hand
9 for running

Now about the scores here above,just pulled them out of my ass, i'm not judging any Spartan.
But you know what i'm getting , my whole point is their skill can vary in all categories eve, if they got the same training.

But with Spartans it's kinda sometimes difficult to see the differences.

[Edited on 12.16.2011 11:26 AM PST]

  • 12.16.2011 11:25 AM PDT

Co Leader of clan BSC

I vote Master Chief, he is the best of the best.

  • 12.17.2011 9:43 AM PDT

sup.i love halo

Master Chief without a doubt most of you might think "Oh Noble-6 is a Sparten 3 so he must have more upgrades then the Sparten 2's" But it is reallty the other way around.Colonal Akerson created the Sparten 3's with little or maybe even none of the information from Dr.Halseys Sparten 2's. so the sparten 3's in return have less strenght and so on.

  • 12.17.2011 11:55 AM PDT


Posted by: spencer the kid
Master Chief without a doubt most of you might think "Oh Noble-6 is a Sparten 3 so he must have more upgrades then the Sparten 2's" But it is reallty the other way around.Colonal Akerson created the Sparten 3's with little or maybe even none of the information from Dr.Halseys Sparten 2's. so the sparten 3's in return have less strenght and so on.


S3 training is better then S2 training.

and, why wouldn't they have that information?

  • 12.17.2011 12:49 PM PDT

_-_-_-FSR-_-_-_

cheif

  • 12.19.2011 6:12 AM PDT

SIII's have less training years compared to the spartan II's.
Also the II's have more experience in different type of battles and over a longer period of time.
I doubt the spartan II's will ever be surpassed. Don't forget gene wise they were the best alive.

  • 12.19.2011 6:44 AM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: spencer the kid
Master Chief without a doubt most of you might think "Oh Noble-6 is a Sparten 3 so he must have more upgrades then the Sparten 2's" But it is reallty the other way around.


No, we never said that. We said both of them had similar augmentations, training and equipment, ie between Chief and Six.

Colonal Akerson created the Sparten 3's with little or maybe even none of the information from Dr.Halseys Sparten 2's. so the sparten 3's in return have less strenght and so on.

Did you even read First Strike? Colonel Ackerson had a file called S-III and in it there were extensive records of the S-IIs as a program and individual members. C'mon, read something else besides a plot synopsis of Ghosts of Onyx.

Posted by: mr_Sh4dy
SIII's have less training years compared to the spartan II's.


Based on? They were trained from ages 4, 5 and 6 and augmented by their pre-teens just like the S-IIs. They were also trained to fight both the Covenant and insurrection while Chief and company were only rained to fight the insurrection and had to learn to fight the Covenant on the job.

Also the II's have more experience in different type of battles and over a longer period of time.

That may be the only truth, but onlt because of the high-risk missions and lack of decent gear issued to the S-IIIs. Give each on MJOLNIR and I guarantee you the S-IIIs would outperform the S-IIs.

and gene wise they were the best alive.

You do know the S-IIIs had genetic markers and such to right?

  • 12.19.2011 9:37 AM PDT

@ DecepticonCobra

They had roughly the same starting age however the spartan III training took about 6years (till first combat mission), thus the oldest members would be 12 while the spartan II's were around 14 at augmentation process stage and recieved some training afterwards. Thus the spartan II's recieved a longer training period.
It was mentioned in ghost of onyx and glasslands that they lowered their genetic standards for new recruits. Don't forget the III's were orphans from destroyed colonies, there's no way Halsey's genetic markers could all be checked with such random groups in such numbers, especially considering the low amount of actual spartan II's that were conscripted.

All in all the spartan II's are more effective per person, however their training, conscription and equipment make them too costly (and probably impossible) to mass produce. Thus the III's are the more effective fighting force but the spartan II's are the better soldiers (not by much though). That effectiveness is the biggest improvement over the II project.

  • 12.19.2011 10:33 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: mr_Sh4dy
@ DecepticonCobra

They had roughly the same starting age however the spartan III training took about 6years (till first combat mission)


Um most spartan 3 "joined" 3-5 years of age.

  • 12.19.2011 10:35 AM PDT


Posted by: grey101

Posted by: mr_Sh4dy
@ DecepticonCobra

They had roughly the same starting age however the spartan III training took about 6years (till first combat mission)


Um most spartan 3 "joined" 3-5 years of age.


On December 27, 2531 Alpha company started training. They activated in November of 2536.

thus almost 6years.
It doesn't matter how old they are. Some were 9 when their training finished others were 12.

It's still a 2 year difference with the Spartan II project, thus the spartan II's had a longer training period.

PS: 3years? Really? I doubt they could do anything that young.

[Edited on 12.19.2011 10:51 AM PST]

  • 12.19.2011 10:49 AM PDT

2 years shorter maybe, but you forget the I believe Kurt himself says the training is more intensive and better then what the S2's went through.

  • 12.19.2011 10:54 AM PDT

Might be, I never said they hadn't.
If you go by sheer numbers the spartan II's have an advantage. However the III's might have had more stuffed into their 6years which could equal 8 years of spartan II training....
I'm not sure which group has the better training. I'm inclined to think that because the spartans II's have a longer time together they are also stronger as a group. But we will never know for sure.

  • 12.19.2011 11:06 AM PDT

-/
/
|(::)(::)(::)|
|(::)(::)(::)|
|(::)(::)(::)|
|(::)(::)(::)|
[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]

Posted by: mr_Sh4dy
Might be, I never said they hadn't.
If you go by sheer numbers the spartan II's have an advantage. However the III's might have had more stuffed into their 6years which could equal 8 years of spartan II training....
I'm not sure which group has the better training. I'm inclined to think that because the spartans II's have a longer time together they are also stronger as a group. But we will never know for sure.

I... Think you have it the wrong way round. There are a ridiculous amount of Spartan III's compared to II's, I think the exact number is 33 Spartan II's? Somewhere in the low 30's.

  • 12.19.2011 7:34 PM PDT