The Tempest thread (confirmed 100% weaponry free)

Very James Bond!

Well Drack is definitely more effective than that kind of gun

I know it's possible and could also be very useful in the right situation but you could say the same thing about police cars. Why don't police cars or S.W.A.T. cars have machine guns mounted on the hood or rocket propelled grenades?

I'm sure you could come up with situations where more armaments would be advantageous but, in general, armed vehicles are for the army not for research and diplomatic missions. Not even for law enforcement. I think that's the crux of Bioware's decision here.

Now I agree that this is at odds with the fact that the squad itself are loaded for bear but, on the other hand, the fact that they are means they should be able to handle all but the most powerful threats themselves without the need for an armed Nomad. Access to heavy weapons is the only reason to arm the Nomad since lighter weapons won't be any more effective than the squad's own anyway.

More like the Batmobile from Arkham Knight
No he's not
That's a bad comparison and you know it.
You go ahead have your vehicle drive around with your white flag and I come in peace stuff. I like to have some form of defense in case I do come under attack. It doesn't have to in the form of a main gun, but it can in the form of a weapon that provides defense that doesn't compromise the car in any way. It also could mean the difference between surviving or not.
Only if they're within the range of the weapons they have to fight back.
How effective will the squadmates weapons be against a missile? Put in a weapon for the car similar to what I suggested, it will take care of the threat giving Ryder the time needed to get out of harms way

Why would police cars need mounted weapons when they can call in reinforcements if the situation requires?
Don't know. At least you have something that might be able to defend yourself with while getting to a safer location, right?
Sure. But having a weapon gives that possiblity of being able to defend yourself instead of doing nothing.
I was able to, but only a few times. I did fire the main gun a couple of times and got lucky enough to hit the rocket headed to me or use the automatic gun to shoot at them. Most of the time I just moved out of the way or jump over them
Why don't you ask the manufacturer of the Land Rover what they would say about that
Horse and Nomad comparison?

Aaryn Flynn said this post is "pretty good" : bsn.boards.net/post/219886

He did not say that.

GannayevOfDream's earlier post brings up several valid points.

But to be honest, a lot of other people here like yourself are having a real hard time processing this decision. Now I do find it nonsensical, at this moment in time, having not played the game. But I'm not going to let something like this get to me so much. Nor am I going to let it colour my entire perceptions of the game. Now I am not saying this is true of you or any other poster, but its fair to say that some are taking this much harder than others, and ruling out people's justifications completely by your own opinion that there isn't a good enough reason that there are no weapons. And that any reasoning will fail. Automatically.

Aaryn Flynn tweeted "Why do you think weapons are the only way to protect people?"

This is true, and we also don't necessarily know what he is referring to here. He could be referring to potential unseen and unknown features the Tempest may have that aren't guns that can be used as a defense should there be an enemy attack. Because of course the creators haven't ignored the fact we are entering an entirely new galaxy and are at immediate risk of being attacked. The trailer confirms this.

Sooo, there are numerous possibilities to this, given that the creators haven't simply ignored the obvious, and that we need suitable defense, especially research and scout vessels, right in the thick of it.

I still think we could get upgrades. I also think that like EDI, SAM may well have a cyberwarfare suite and a possible means of hacking enemy ships own weapons and disabling them or whatever thing the writers can do to justify it. 

But at this rate you and plenty of others have just decided against it, any and all possible justifications within the game itself we may not know of. Plot can excuse this decision. We don't even know the plot yet, but the possibility is there for it to do so. Its really only your opinion that the plot can't excuse it, because you are so up in arms about there being no guns on the ship, and no explanation will be good enough to justify it. Hey maybe its just mine opinion that a potential explanation can. I just think some people are making a mountain out of a molehill with this. 

The equal ground, for me anyways, seems to be liking either the Tempest being armed, but the Nomad not being so (or vice versa) -or- recgonizing the potential logical pitfalls but not really leting it effect your overall opinion of the game overmuch. 

I am being serious about the well-being of people. Anyone who sends civilians out into the unknown without a means to defend each other do not care about their well-being. Stealth and speed may protect you, but it won't protect others and with how few people are along for this mission personnel is not something that can be casually thrown away. For example a situation was brought up to Aaryn Flynn's tweet about other ways to defend people than weapons which involved another ship being attacked by an aggressor and needing imminent help. Aaryn Flynn had no answer, instead just liking the joke answer another fan gave. 

Where did I criticize people who don't like the decision? I said it was fine that people don't like it or any explanations given to the decision. I wasn't criticizing at all. I made an observation that people's opinions are firmly set against rationale for the decision, not a criticism. Correct me if I am wrong if there is a means of solving this logical problem that you'd be ok with? It was just an observation that you and others find it too illogical that not enough of justification by the writers can rectify it.

Sorry if you saw it as a criticism, but I wasn't making one. Also where was I trying to have the moral high ground? I was criticizing the fact you said people who use logic won't like it, as if to say people who do like the decision have no logic. If that isn't what you meant, then i again, sincerely apologize.

And Aaryn Flynn mentioned that there are other means of defense other than guns, which for now I am taking to mean that the Tempest has other defenses, like I mentioned in the post above the one you quoted.

One of your posts at first read as you calling those who are up in arms about this as nonsensical. I reread the post and saw that wasn't the case, but before I could edit that out of my post you replied. So I apologize for that premature accusation. I also apologize for my one post being read as a slight towards those who are fine with this decision, as I should have been more specific. The 'they' I was referring to was referring to an in-universe perspective in the sense that in-universe nobody would see the decisions the AI has made to be logical since they know that alien life is a real thing and can be a threat so would not send civilians without a means of fighting back. We know this because we've seen this mindset prevalent throughout the trilogy. So with this still being done, it means those who are responsible for making this decision seeing it as a good idea are illogical and have little to no care about their people's well-being. 

As I said, the kinds of defenses the Tempest has could work for defending those within the Tempest, however they cannot defend those outside of the Tempest whether that be the crew while on the ground or another ship in need of immediate protection. When asked about this, Aaryn Flynn had no answer despite still reading the discussion. 

That's ok  and again I also apologize for my other post not being worded properly   

I agree that back in the Milky Way a lot of people would be scratching their heads about this decision on the Andromeda Initiative's part.

Shepard for one. Paragon and Renegade. And Garrus... not getting to calibrate anything. And I'm sure Cerberus'd probably have a few things to say on the AI's lack of initiative. The original Citadel Council are probably the only ones who'd be ok with the whole "We Come In Peace" attitude, given their stance on Shepard's actions in and around the Terminus Systems, and the careful galactic balance of things. Of course there homeworlds may well vehemently disagree. 

I wish the developer's could give us a bit more insight into why this decision was made, though like Colfoley has mentioned above, it could be to allow for a Kett attack, a probable key plot point early on.