The Tempest thread (confirmed 100% weaponry free)

I want Fred instead of the Tempest.

also doesn't Shepard call for an orbital strike from the Normandy on Rannoch?

Yep. After clearing the area, they use the targeting laser to paint the Reaper transmitter for the Normandy to hit, only for it to turn out to be an actual Reaper. 

Imagine Sam reminding us to brush our teeth, or telling our squad awkward stories about our childhood. Embarrassing us in front of them.


That's so creepy it's not even funny. Stop it!

I don't think so. Are you?



Or a conscious design choice, for which several reasons have been offered. I'll not repeat them - if you're interested, read the thread.



I'm not a mind reader, and can only interpret what you wrote as what you intended to convey. You're the one who mentioned Tuchanka, so I asked why Ryder would land on such a planet. They should not be landing on any settled, inhabited world without first making contact and obtaining permission. I don't expect to have Ryder landing on random planets just because... The characters should have valid reasons for doing what they're doing. Planets that are especially perilous might be places they should avoid, anyway. A Mako-style turret / pulse cannon may help in some environments, but there are also places where the Mako (or an armed Nomad) would not provide enough firepower. I mean, sure, you can say that some weaponry is better than none, but at what point do you have enough? No matter how much firepower you put on the vehicles, you can still find yourself overwhelmed by superior forces.

---------------------------------------

Yes, I'd prefer to have armaments on at least the Nomad, if not also the Tempest. We don't know what the AI is bringing in terms of warships or strike team forces. All we know thus far is that the Nomad and Tempest are not armed.

But from the outset, the AI is not for the faint of heart or risk-averse. To spend 600 years in cryo-sleep traveling in a ship with an experimental drive on auto-pilot to get to another galaxy about which you know precious little is already rolling the dice.  I'm surprised that the lack of weaponry on the Tempest & Nomad is getting so much ire from so many.

I told you man, on the Ark there is probably a big sentence written for ennemy's ships like : "Come at me bro, no space fight bullshit, just a face to face with a gun".

You didn't actually address the point I was trying to raise.

In a previous post, you had said, "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."

The in-universe perspective I've seen in several cases is that colonizing planets with minimal to no defenses is just business as usual, at least in the Milky Way. As near as I can tell, colonization has been done by various groups and organizations with various goals and overall success rates. I don't see any in-universe rule that says you can't place a colony without x defensive structure.

Yeah the last time I played ME3 (about a month ago) I was playing an adept and barely bothered to use my gun. I definitely had ammo left, all the cannibals were dead, and I sat there for a good minute wondering if the game had bugged out before Joker came in with his dramatic 'rescue.' I was like, "Um... Glad you could finally make it?" Now that I know I can just use up my ammo I'll do that... I fought those things for a really long time before they finally stopped!

That's strange - every one I've read has been eminently coherent, and generally very well-written. That you've not found any of them convincing is another matter - but all of this is subject to personal opinion.

One of the reasons offered is design considerations. I am by no means any sort of vehicle engineer, but I'll attempt to describe one possible example of a form that could take.

Let's say that you can build an extremely quick, agile, maneuverable, comfortable, lightweight exploration transport vehicle that offers excellent environmental protection, plenty of storage space, and can travel long distances without the need for refueling. This vehicle has individual suspension for each of its 6 wheels, but does not include any built-in weaponry.

If you want to include a turret, you'll need a stiffer, heavier suspension to absorb the recoil and provide stability. If the vehicle is going to stand and fight (instead of flee), you'll also need to include heavy armor plating. Designing the vehicle to accommodate on-board weaponry will result in it being much heavier, much slower, with less storage space, harder to maneuver, and less range per re-fuel.

Choosing the former over the latter is not illogical. It depends upon your priorities and what you expect to be doing with the vehicle, just as a Ferrari, Humvee, and semi-truck each have characteristics that are better suited for different purposes.

But the actual reason - which has also been discussed in this thread - is, in all likelihood, that BioWare simply chose not to include vehicular combat in the game.



Or... you might do well to just jump in the Nomad and vamoose. Turn on your jet-pack booties and fly.

It's been mentioned by others that there weren't any places in ME1 where you really had to kill a Thresher Maw. If you're concerned about safety, fleeing might be a more rational choice.

Discretion is the better part of valor, after all.

sure, it would make the vehicle likely smaller, that is assuming that it would be even a dramatic decrease in speed but dammit I would take it and so would anyone going onto uncharted dangerous planets because having the chance to blow up an incoming threat beats having only two possible options when confronted which are in this case hiding or running away....or if cornered to DIE, hopefully quickly but I have the feeling that ryder would still be alive when the local fauna started to eat his entrails.

Of course if you tell me the nomad is made of vibranium and adamantium and it can ram a reaper destroyer to death then sure, I am ok with having no cannon.

Not exactly a weapon but there is a defense for the Nomad:

Hammerhead represent!