First of all, the statement "A concentrated effort by the fleets of organic races could also destroy a Reaper even if it is at full power: a single fleet managed to quickly destroy Sovereign when its shields and weapons were disabled." seems slightly contradictory. How does the ability to destroy a completely disabled Reaper support the claim that a concentrated effort by the fleets of organic races can destroy a full power ship?
Second, I'd like to point something out regarding the trivia about "Reaper gunships". The term gunship could easily be a generic term to refer to a Reaper of any class. The codex entry in question is regarding the battle of Earth from the very beginning of the game. It is entirely possible the Citadel races had not yet classified the known subtypes and this term is merely generic. We also have no idea what the firepower of a capital ship is because we do not have any idea what their rate of fire is; it is never stated. The Thanix cannon, a Reaper based weapon, is stated to be capable of firing every 5 seconds. If capital ships can fire full power shots at the same rate, a one megaton shot every 5 seconds is 200 kilotons per second time averaged firepower. The Everest-class, the only vessel we have definitive information about, fires 38 kiloton rounds every 2 seconds, or 19 kilotons per second. This gives the capital ship about ten and a half times the firepower. Given capital ships are several times the size of Citadel dreadnoughts and proportionally much more powerful, this is hardly inconsistent. Thus I don't know that it is necessarily trivia. Thoughts? Quakeomaniac (talk) 05:48, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
- reading comprehension plz. whole paragraph context, not just that single statement. (HINT: paragraph talks about hibernating reapers then awake/"full-power" ones).
- Codex/The_Reapers#Reaper_Capabilities. no time qualifiers on weapon discharge frequency, the closest given in the earth codex is "megaton-scale" annihilation "in seconds". still legit as a trivia as there are clear ambiguities between the given entries. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 06:19, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
To begin with, there is no need to be disrespectful. My comprehension of that paragraph is not flawed. The statement is not taken out of context by not quoting the entire paragraph. It is a single sentence, and it contradicts ITSELF.
You also simply restated what I have already said: we have no idea how fast a Reaper's main gun fires. That is the point. Powerful shots at a low rate of fire or weaker shots at a rapid rate of fire yield the same overall power output. Also, note that the codex entry on Reaper capabilities says estimates of their destructive power, and it is given as a very large range. It is extremely probable they can fire shots of variable power level. Consequently, we do not know that they're incapable of firing megaton level shots at a lower rate. It isn't really ambiguous beyond what "Reaper gunship" refers to. Quakeomaniac (talk) 07:00, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
- then obviously you're not reading "full power" right. because "full power" in that context is used in contrast to "sleeping reaper". if you want to reword things into something you can understand, go right ahead. i'll only revert if the intended meaning goes off.
- your second part is just veering into speculation now. what the codex says, goes until supplemental/devconfirmed material proves otherwise. here's the fact of the matter: gunships' "megaton-scale" firepower vs capships' "132-450 kT" firepower. the time factor is too sketchy to base anything concrete on, we might as well say alliance dreads can produce "megaton-level" sustained-bombardment firepower given about a minute or so. in the absence of anything else the numbers don't seem to match up. ergo someone (other than me) noticed. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:33, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
Your explanation is fairly reasonable, however I don't see how a completely disabled ship can be considered to be at "full power" in any way. To me it is not obvious that "full power" is used in contradistinction to "hibernating". If that is just me, then so be it. I just wanted to note that it seemed contradictory.
I will admit that I am speculating to some extent. The point is the 132-454 kiloton range of values in the codex is not only a huge spread, but it is explicitly stated to be estimates, as in first hand observation by the species of the galaxy. The point is those numbers only establish a lower limit; we DO NOT know what the maximum shot power for any class of Reaper is. That is why I do not consider it inconsistent. And no, this is not in the slightest like claiming an Alliance dreadnought could do the same thing. The numbers provided for the Everest class are exact, and the I'm quite sure the species of the galaxy know the capabilities of their own vessels. An extragalactic invasion fleet? Doubtful. I have no intention of changing the article unless anyone else agrees with any of this. Quakeomaniac (talk) 07:58, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
A few questions. Edit
First, starting with Harbinger. Alliance intelligence identifies it as being the largest Reaper in the armada
- So is it possible there are Reapers beyond 2-5 km in size? Would that be a logical assumption to deduce? Also possible is the fact this isn't the only Reaper armada?
Exactly how much more powerful it is than a normal, Reaper Capital Ship is unknown.
- Does this mean Harbinger's weapon yields could possibly be in the gigaton / teraton levels or beyond (see next question)?
Next I'm going onto weapons. Their main weapon is a spinal mounted "magnetohydrodynamic" cannon with a yield of 132 to 450 kilotons of TNT, which dwarfs the main gun of an Everest-class Alliance dreadnought.
- Seeing how "Alliance intelligence" has deduced this to be the primary weapon the Reapers use against an inferior threat during a harvest going according to plan, wouldn't logic dictate them to have "heavy weapons" and "planet-busters" as well should the event arise it becomes more logical to exterminate as opposed to harvest? Surely a species billions of years old would have run into this situation.
Capital Ships are also armed with multiple cannons in their "tendrils" capable of shearing through most opposing vessels in a single hit, a point defense system (similar to the GARDIAN systems favored by organics) for anti-fighter and anti-projectile purposes, and are capable of unleashing swarms of Oculi drones to engage fighter-sized craft.
- It would take a lot more than 450 kilotons to do this, just saying.
They are extremely durable, capable of taking the continuous and simultaneous fire of four dreadnoughts before they start to lose their kinetic barriers.
- Since it doesn't say how long before they START to lose their kinetic barriers, we'll assume they can hold up for at LEAST a minute or two (60-120 seconds) that would be nearly 10 to 20 megatons of damage could be tanked by these monsters AT LEAST, and probably half again that damage on top of their nearly resilient exoskeletons. (Although I am sure they could probably tank it for a good 10-15 minutes realistically speaking.)
Also, indoctrination: This mental manipulation is known as indoctrination. Put simply, any organic being who is in close proximity to a Reaper or certain Reaper artifacts for too long comes to believe the Reapers are correct in their goals, and will do anything to serve them. Gradually, the mind is eroded until the individual becomes a mindless slave no longer capable of independent thought. This indoctrination is permanent (with the single possible exception of Shiala) and is one of the most insidious weapons of the Reapers. Entire civilizations can be delivered into the Reapers' hands by the indoctrination of a few influential individuals; during the invasion of Earth, the Reapers broadcast messages inviting diplomats into their holds to negotiate, where they would then presumably be indoctrinated.
- It also states pretty clearly that only the most powerful of will can resist indoctrination (asari matriarchs for example) and only temporarily. Wouldn't this mean that no amount of technology could possibly hope to negate Reaper indoctrination? Just needing to clear this up, in kind of a debate right now. --DC Ambrose (talk) 18:22, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
this is the very sort of thing the boilerplate notice above on every talkpage warns about. if you've got answers, post them on the asker's talkpage. or make a thread/blog about it. just not here. further replies will be reverted without warning because this is the warning. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 01:03, June 24, 2014 (UTC)
What is the source for the Reaper main gun being spinally mounted? The Codex doesn't mention it. So what is the actual source for the Wiki article claiming the Reaper main gun to be spinally mounted? -- The preceding comment by: User:Tyzuris Coronati (talk) 11:26, June 5, 2014
- it is mentioned in the codex, under Sovereign's entry. http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Sovereign.
LOL, editorial petty-politics of egotismEdit
Hilariously, some anal-retentive editorial dragon-queen or whatever deleted my extremely small, and scholastically beneficial in any case, addition of "Lovecraftian"/"Lovecraftianesque" to describe the Reapers.
Internet Encyclopedia editing in all its infamous absurdity.
The writers, developers, creators OF ME, THEMSELVES, yes, THEY THEMSELVES, mention, overtly, unashamed, the specifically Lovecraftian inspirational element to the Reapers. Do I really have to cite like a little school-boy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk · contr).
If you are not mocking me in some esoteric way, gladly. I shall shortly. I am honestly surprised people do not even know this - and just re-reading the article, LOL, there is clear mention of Lovecraft and his influence, near the bottom notes. I am not crazy. I shall gather the scholastically-immaculate, MLA/whatever-blessed substantiation in due time. Perhaps this is attributable to the simple unpopularity of Lovecraft, I guess... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk · contr).