Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 18:25:45 GMT -8
By the E3 trailer, the arks look at least the same size of the Citadel.
|
|
monk
New Member
Focus on te jorney, nt te dstnatin. Joy is fnd nt in fnshing an actvty but in doing it. -G. Anderson
Posts: 23
|
Post by monk on Jul 31, 2016 10:41:40 GMT -8
Err, the Citadel is approx. 44 miles long. It's unlikely they could have produced three, or more, in any time frame within the run of the trilogy.
|
|
Yermogi
New Member
Posts: 5
Gender: Female
|
Post by Yermogi on Jul 31, 2016 14:44:41 GMT -8
For those that are debating the Time, I ask this: How long did it take to build the Crucible in ME3? Going by pure gameplay only, you'd think the whole thing was done in a matter of weeks.... I say six months. With round-the-clock building. SO a two-year build for 3 ARKs isn't all THAT impossible.... I really don't think the Arks would have to be anywhere near that large. The Crucible was the size of the Citadel, 45 kilometers in length, but there's no reason the Arks would have to be much larger than a dreadnought, certainly no larger than a Reaper. They don't need so much space to carry the stasis pods and even when they wake people up, they will be supporting a population of thousands, maybe ten thousand, not the millions you could house aboard the Citadel. That doesn't address your point, but this assumption that the Arks would have to be so massive really has no basis. To address your point, the drive core solution most likely resides in the missing remains of Sovereign. I agree with these points. If you can build the Crucible in under a year, why wouldn't you be able to build a few ARC ships which probably don't need as many resources as the Crucible, and, given that they probably wouldn't need to develop tons of new technology to do it, could spend more time building and less time researching.
|
|
SKAR
New Member
Skarry don't play that.
Posts: 27
Gender: Male
Sexuality: Straight
XBL: SKAR5903
|
Post by SKAR on Aug 1, 2016 19:18:32 GMT -8
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
During wars, governments go into debt all the time. The Republicans under Bush spent 200+ billions monthly, easy..
From a Mass Effect plot point of view, that debt is justified. If I was in charge, I'd give the go ahead because if we lose, who cares about the debt. Right? And, if we win, I'll worry about it later". I agree with you on that. I mean who wouldn't want to spend all that money to go to Andromeda? It's amazing. Exploration of the unknown is a good an investment as any. That's a large part of what's happening today with NASA and civilian corporations who want to explore and colonize Mars.
|
|
|
Post by themikefest on Aug 2, 2016 6:45:14 GMT -8
I don't agree with that. The ships going to Andromeda have to maintain life support for all that are on that ship for the journey. It has store all kinds of supplies. From the looks of it they will have docking bays for smaller ships and even fighters. It also would have to have some kind of weapon defense system in case it comes under fire once it arrives in Andromeda. It will also be used as a hub once it arrives in Andromeda. The crucible has none of that. Yes it may be bigger than the ships, but it also had the galaxy helping build it whereas there won't be the same amount building the ships going to Andromeda
|
|
|
Post by Mcfly616 on Aug 2, 2016 7:23:10 GMT -8
Err, the Citadel is approx. 44 miles long. It's unlikely they could have produced three, or more, in any time frame within the run of the trilogy. Not to mention, having us create something comparable to the Citadel in so little time, simply belittles the majesty of the structure itself. It's one of the "Wonders" of the galaxy....
|
|
monk
New Member
Focus on te jorney, nt te dstnatin. Joy is fnd nt in fnshing an actvty but in doing it. -G. Anderson
Posts: 23
|
Post by monk on Aug 2, 2016 9:15:42 GMT -8
Err, the Citadel is approx. 44 miles long. It's unlikely they could have produced three, or more, in any time frame within the run of the trilogy. Not to mention, having us create something comparable to the Citadel in so little time, simply belittles the majesty of the structure itself. It's one of the "Wonders" of the galaxy.... And considering all the mysteries surrounding the actual running of it, i doubt we could accurately match the Citadel without making one larger due to an inability to miniaturize properly the unknown aspects. There's also replicating the service provided by the Keepers, which also isn't wholly known.
|
|
|
Post by dmc1001 on Aug 7, 2016 11:34:56 GMT -8
I'm thinking the Alliance started building the Arks sometime during ME2. Why? Well, Hackett believed the Reapers were a credible threat in order to send Shepard on the Arrival mission. He's an admiral so his beliefs carry some weight, even if the Alliance isn't publicly acknowledging the Reapers (to prevent mass panic, I suppose). Then, they probably completed construction while Shepard was spending 6 months in confinement. I'd say the Arks weren't launched until at least after Tuchanka, mainly because there will be krogan and I suspect they will be fertile. (Could be wrong, just guesswork - launching before Tuchanka is easier to avoid player choices regarding the genophage.)
However, I can't say the elite are the only ones going. Otherwise, Henry Lawson likely would have been on one of them. There must have been other factors.
|
|