440 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

smudboy wrote...

In the "opening the gate" scenario and the Paragaon and Renegade style responses, I don't see where he's endangering Shepard and the other squadmate.  Renegade Shepard doesn't seem to care about the innocents along the way, and in no way are the slaves part of "liberating the refinery." I'd argue Zaeed's reasoning is sound: he has a strategy to get passed the gate of men, and he's already throught of how to stop Vido, obviously in a very destructive way.  That sounds like efficient leadership to me.

You don't see how starting a fire in the middle of an OIL REFINERY surrounded by explosive material doesn't put the team in danger?  Look at the cut-scene.  It's a small miracle the team wasn't caught in the back-blast.

Also the mission is to save the refinery not to stop Vido.  Zaeed loses sight of this which is why (one reason why anyway) he's a bad leader.  He lets his emotions get in the way of the mission.

-Polaris

[IoCaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Smud, during Zaeed's loyalty mission, when he blows up the gas pipe just to get a shot at killing Vido, isn't that unnecessarily risking the lives of Shepard and the third squadmate? I don't think any good leader would do something like that. It seems to me as if Zaeed didn't care about the team; he only cared about making sure Vido doesn't get away.

Sure you could look at it that way. Another way to look at it is that Zaeed was in command of his mission. He recognized that his squad was outnumbered by Vido and his thugs. Vido also had the tactical advantage on an elevated platform. Zaeed sized up the situation, realized that his squad was in an untenable position and took the initiative. Vido was wounded and his thugs were killed or driven off. Zaeed essentially saved the squad and created an opening to advance into the refinery. When Shep questions him about it he explains this and the mission continues.

Zaeed was never in charge of the mission.  He only takes command when if Shepard goes renegade.  The mission was clear:  Save the refinery.  Zaeed by his actions endangered the lives of his teammates (blowing up the gate in a refinery!) and doesn't show any regard for his mission as well.

It may be Zaeed's mission,. but Shepard is in charge.

-Polaris

The dialogue seems to be pretty clear to me.

Zaeed: "This is MY mission. Remember that. I came here to kill Vido Santiago. You want help on your mission, you better make damn sure that man dies today."

If the player wants to seize control of the mission at that point, it's certainly an option, but it's definitely not necessary.

[IanPolaris]

You are wrong.



You only get that dialog if Shepard chooses the renegade path. Just because Zaeed says it's his mission:



1) Does not mean he's in charge.

2) Does not mean he's the leader.



In fact in all the missions in ME2, Shepard leads the missions.



-Polaris

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...
Zaeed was never in charge of the mission.  He only takes command when if Shepard goes renegade.  The mission was clear:  Save the refinery.  Zaeed by his actions endangered the lives of his teammates (blowing up the gate in a refinery!) and doesn't show any regard for his mission as well.

It may be Zaeed's mission,. but Shepard is in charge.
-Polaris

Zaeed: "Picked up a mission a little while back, just before I signed on with Cerberus.  Thought you might be interested."
Zaeed: "You heard the name Vito Santiago?  He's the head of the Blue Suns. Runs the whole organization."
Zaeed: "Seems he recently captured an Eldfell-Ashland refinery on Zorya and is using their workers for slave labor.  The company wants it dealt with."
Shepard: "I'll make sure we get that done."
Zaeed: "Good.  Get it out of the way so we can concentrate on being big goddamn heroes."

"Before he was hired by Cerberus, Zaeed had taken a mission to go to Zorya and liberate an Eldfell-Ashland refinery from the Blue Suns. Once his work there is done, he can dedicate his full attention to the mission."

I would agree that Shepard is in charge.  Shepard is clearly not showing leadership material though., since they allowed Zaeed to have a conversation with Vido, let him shoot things, and let him blow up the refinery in the process while they and their extra squadmate crouched behind a chest high wall.  They also did not see the strategic advantage of quickly blowing up the refinery while being outnumbered by men on higher ground, nor considering alternate routes if the gate wasn't passable.

One of these days Shepard's going to get someone killed.

I would also imagine that Eldfell-Ashland refinery knows what they're getting into when they hired Zaeed for the job.

Also, on a personal note, I would refrain from spouting your military/specialist experience/argument of authority.  It doesn't help and merely confirms your bias.  Just focus on the objective facts.  There are points for and against.

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...

smudboy wrote...

In the "opening the gate" scenario and the Paragaon and Renegade style responses, I don't see where he's endangering Shepard and the other squadmate.  Renegade Shepard doesn't seem to care about the innocents along the way, and in no way are the slaves part of "liberating the refinery." I'd argue Zaeed's reasoning is sound: he has a strategy to get passed the gate of men, and he's already throught of how to stop Vido, obviously in a very destructive way.  That sounds like efficient leadership to me.

You don't see how starting a fire in the middle of an OIL REFINERY surrounded by explosive material doesn't put the team in danger?  Look at the cut-scene.  It's a small miracle the team wasn't caught in the back-blast.

Also the mission is to save the refinery not to stop Vido.  Zaeed loses sight of this which is why (one reason why anyway) he's a bad leader.  He lets his emotions get in the way of the mission.

-Polaris

I just did.  They seemed fine.  They took cover.  Things are good.  What are you looking at exactly?

The mission is to liberate the refinery.  I'm sure Eldfell-Ashland would love it saved. I'm also sure they know what they're getting themselves into when Zaeed is involved, especially since their refinery was taken over by mercs.

Vido's in charge of the mercs.  Zaeed was hired to liberate the refinery.  It would be a logical goal to remove the leader of the mercs, and thus, liberate the refinery.  Zaeed may be emotional, but he is not losing sight of the goal.

[IoCaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

You are wrong.

You only get that dialog if Shepard chooses the renegade path. Just because Zaeed says it's his mission:

1) Does not mean he's in charge.
2) Does not mean he's the leader.

In fact in all the missions in ME2, Shepard leads the missions.

-Polaris

I'm not understanding the distinction here. It's a viable choice for the player to let Zaeed keep the lead and complete the mission on his terms. He leads the mission unless you override his authority and take direct command. It works just fine if you follow along and let him complete the mission as he wants. It doesn't break the game or the narrative in any way. You still get a mission complete screen and go on to your next port of call. 

The game and mission are structured that way. There's no option to stop Zaeed from taking the initiative and knocking the valve loose or otherwise finding another path into the refinery. Was there another option to drive Vido and his thugs from their position and gaining access to the refinery that I missed?

[IanPolaris]

smudboy wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Zaeed was never in charge of the mission.  He only takes command when if Shepard goes renegade.  The mission was clear:  Save the refinery.  Zaeed by his actions endangered the lives of his teammates (blowing up the gate in a refinery!) and doesn't show any regard for his mission as well.

It may be Zaeed's mission,. but Shepard is in charge.
-Polaris

Zaeed: "Picked up a mission a little while back, just before I signed on with Cerberus.  Thought you might be interested."
Zaeed: "You heard the name Vito Santiago?  He's the head of the Blue Suns. Runs the whole organization."
Zaeed: "Seems he recently captured an Eldfell-Ashland refinery on Zorya and is using their workers for slave labor.  The company wants it dealt with."
Shepard: "I'll make sure we get that done."
Zaeed: "Good.  Get it out of the way so we can concentrate on being big goddamn heroes."

"Before he was hired by Cerberus, Zaeed had taken a mission to go to Zorya and liberate an Eldfell-Ashland refinery from the Blue Suns. Once his work there is done, he can dedicate his full attention to the mission."

I would agree that Shepard is in charge.  Shepard is clearly not showing leadership material though., since they allowed Zaeed to have a conversation with Vido, let him shoot things, and let him blow up the refinery in the process while they and their extra squadmate crouched behind a chest high wall.  They also did not see the strategic advantage of quickly blowing up the refinery while being outnumbered by men on higher ground, nor considering alternate routes if the gate wasn't passable.

Nope.  Play the mission again.  Shepard asks and talks to Zaeed about his past with Vido.  This is a good thing especially since it potentially gives Shepard insight into his opponent.  As for Vido and Zaeed talking, up to that point (and including the scene) Zaeed acts like a cowboy.  It's not a poor reflection on Shepard's leadership but a rather a poor reflection of Zaeed's emotional control (he lets Vido goad him and Vido clearly knows this is Zaeed's weakness).

One of these days Shepard's going to get someone killed.

The game clearly establishes Shepard as a superior leader.  I know what you are trying to do, but no one is buying except those that already have hardened to your point of view.

I would also imagine that Eldfell-Ashland refinery knows what they're getting into when they hired Zaeed for the job.

Evidence would be nice.  You are given a mission:  Liberate the Refinery.  Zaeed puts his team and the mission at risk because he can't control his emotions in combat.  That makes him almost a stereotypical bad leader.  This really is leadership 101 and it's one of the first thing tought to specialists that want to make sergeant.  Always maintain emotional control in a crisis situation.  If you lose it as a leader, your followers will too.

Also, on a personal note, I would refrain from spouting your military/specialist experience/argument of authority.  It doesn't help and merely confirms your bias.  Just focus on the objective facts.  There are points for and against.

What modern professional military leadership standards happen to be ARE objective facts and by those standards Zaeed is a poor leader.  Don't take my word for it.  Take the courses yourself.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

smudboy wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

smudboy wrote...

In the "opening the gate" scenario and the Paragaon and Renegade style responses, I don't see where he's endangering Shepard and the other squadmate.  Renegade Shepard doesn't seem to care about the innocents along the way, and in no way are the slaves part of "liberating the refinery." I'd argue Zaeed's reasoning is sound: he has a strategy to get passed the gate of men, and he's already throught of how to stop Vido, obviously in a very destructive way.  That sounds like efficient leadership to me.

You don't see how starting a fire in the middle of an OIL REFINERY surrounded by explosive material doesn't put the team in danger?  Look at the cut-scene.  It's a small miracle the team wasn't caught in the back-blast.

Also the mission is to save the refinery not to stop Vido.  Zaeed loses sight of this which is why (one reason why anyway) he's a bad leader.  He lets his emotions get in the way of the mission.

-Polaris

I just did.  They seemed fine.  They took cover.  Things are good.  What are you looking at exactly?

Cover is highly imperfect protection against explosions. It's one reason why the fire grenade is so good against people in cover.  They were NOT fine.

The mission is to liberate the refinery.  I'm sure Eldfell-Ashland would love it saved. I'm also sure they know what they're getting themselves into when Zaeed is involved, especially since their refinery was taken over by mercs.

The mission is still to LIBERATE the refinery NOT blow it up.  You don't know what Eldfell-Ashland would like.  I can, however, infer that they would not hire spec-ops infantry if they wanted the place destroyed.  Nuking it from orbit would get rid of the installation and Vido just fine and likely would be cheaper.

That tells me that the people that hired out the mission DO want the place intact and thus Zaeed IS endangering the mission.

Vido's in charge of the mercs.  Zaeed was hired to liberate the refinery.  It would be a logical goal to remove the leader of the mercs, and thus, liberate the refinery.  Zaeed may be emotional, but he is not losing sight of the goal.

Nope.  By starting the fire, Zaeed is putting the existance of the refinery in danger thus jeapordizing the mission.  By setting up a situation where the team is forced to fight in a burning refinery to accomplish the mission, he's also endangering the lives of the team....and for no good reason.  Killing Vido is NOT the mission no matter what Zaeed says on the renegade path.

-Polaris

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  Play the mission again.  Shepard asks and talks to Zaeed about his past with Vido.  This is a good thing especially since it potentially gives Shepard insight into his opponent.  As for Vido and Zaeed talking, up to that point (and including the scene) Zaeed acts like a cowboy.  It's not a poor reflection on Shepard's leadership but a rather a poor reflection of Zaeed's emotional control (he lets Vido goad him and Vido clearly knows this is Zaeed's weakness).

I fail to see how his emotional control got the better of him in his technique of "opening the gate."

The game clearly establishes Shepard as a superior leader.  I know what you are trying to do, but no one is buying except those that already have hardened to your point of view.

Where is Shepard a superior leader?

Evidence would be nice.  You are given a mission:  Liberate the Refinery.  Zaeed puts his team and the mission at risk because he can't control his emotions in combat.  That makes him almost a stereotypical bad leader.  This really is leadership 101 and it's one of the first thing tought to specialists that want to make sergeant.  Always maintain emotional control in a crisis situation.  If you lose it as a leader, your followers will too.

"Zaeed Massani is notoriously known as the galaxy's most feared bounty hunter and mercenary soldier."

Unless they thought he was a really nice diplomat and used car salesman.

What modern professional military leadership standards happen to be ARE objective facts and by those standards Zaeed is a poor leader.  Don't take my word for it.  Take the courses yourself.

-Polaris

No I don't want to take courses, that won't teach me anything here.  I'll just objective view the narrative as usual.  You know, without a bias.

Where is Zaeed a poor leader?

[smudboy]

Double post.

Modifié par smudboy, 13 août 2010 - 08:45 .

[IanPolaris]

IoCaster wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You are wrong.

You only get that dialog if Shepard chooses the renegade path. Just because Zaeed says it's his mission:

1) Does not mean he's in charge.
2) Does not mean he's the leader.

In fact in all the missions in ME2, Shepard leads the missions.

-Polaris

I'm not understanding the distinction here. It's a viable choice for the player to let Zaeed keep the lead and complete the mission on his terms. He leads the mission unless you override his authority and take direct command. It works just fine if you follow along and let him complete the mission as he wants. It doesn't break the game or the narrative in any way. You still get a mission complete screen and go on to your next port of call. 

The game and mission are structured that way. There's no option to stop Zaeed from taking the initiative and knocking the valve loose or otherwise finding another path into the refinery. Was there another option to drive Vido and his thugs from their position and gaining access to the refinery that I missed?

Nope.  Shepard is in charge.  Shepard gives commands to his squaddies.  That is crystal clear from the start.  What Zaeed does is what in the military we sometimes call "Going Cowboy" and actively did his own thing without regard to the team or the mission.   It's a sure fire sign that he is not a good leader....do the Paragon Version and Shepard basically (and rather brutally) explains why what Zaeed did was stupid and not showing good leadership (or followership for that matter).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

smudboy wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  Play the mission again.  Shepard asks and talks to Zaeed about his past with Vido.  This is a good thing especially since it potentially gives Shepard insight into his opponent.  As for Vido and Zaeed talking, up to that point (and including the scene) Zaeed acts like a cowboy.  It's not a poor reflection on Shepard's leadership but a rather a poor reflection of Zaeed's emotional control (he lets Vido goad him and Vido clearly knows this is Zaeed's weakness).

I fail to see how his emotional control got the better of him in his technique of "opening the gate."

"Burn you (explitives follow)" is a sure sign that Zaeed is losing it.  So is forgetting that his mission is to liberate the refinery NOT to destroy it.  Trying to argue otherwise is simply silly at this point.

The game clearly establishes Shepard as a superior leader.  I know what you are trying to do, but no one is buying except those that already have hardened to your point of view.

Where is Shepard a superior leader?

Pretty much the whole darn game including TIM aknowledge Shepard as a superior leader.

Evidence would be nice.  You are given a mission:  Liberate the Refinery.  Zaeed puts his team and the mission at risk because he can't control his emotions in combat.  That makes him almost a stereotypical bad leader.  This really is leadership 101 and it's one of the first thing tought to specialists that want to make sergeant.  Always maintain emotional control in a crisis situation.  If you lose it as a leader, your followers will too.

"Zaeed Massani is notoriously known as the galaxy's most feared bounty hunter and mercenary soldier."

Unless they thought he was a really nice diplomat and used car salesman.

No where in that description indicates that Zaeed is a good leader.  A 20 year private in the French Foreign Legion is about the most badass soldier you'd ever have the misfortune to meet.  His NCOs and officers would draw open his experience and give him the most difficult individual tasks to accomplish.

That doesn't make him a good leader.  Being "badass soldier" is different from being "effective combat leader".

What modern professional military leadership standards happen to be ARE objective facts and by those standards Zaeed is a poor leader.  Don't take my word for it.  Take the courses yourself.

-Polaris

No I don't want to take courses, that won't teach me anything here.  I'll just objective view the narrative as usual.  You know, without a bias.

Where is Zaeed a poor leader?

Just a few pages ago, another poster posted every single block of Zaeed's text WITHOUT bias and then explained how that showed he was a poor leader.  I have shown that by PME standards, Zaeed is not a good leader using the game actions and text (often text you quote) as evidence.

What more do you want?  At this point I think you are just being stubborn.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 août 2010 - 08:53 .

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...
Cover is highly imperfect protection against explosions. It's one reason why the fire grenade is so good against people in cover.  They were NOT fine.

In the ME2 universe, cover is God Mode.

The mission is still to LIBERATE the refinery NOT blow it up.  You don't know what Eldfell-Ashland would like.  I can, however, infer that they would not hire spec-ops infantry if they wanted the place destroyed.  Nuking it from orbit would get rid of the installation and Vido just fine and likely would be cheaper.

That tells me that the people that hired out the mission DO want the place intact and thus Zaeed IS endangering the mission.

Liberating a refinery involves killing Vido.  It can also involve killing Vido via blowing up the refinery.

If I don't know what Eldfell-Ashland wants, and we have the same info, neither do you.

Eldfell-Ashland hired "the galaxy's most feared bounty hunter and mercenary soldier."  Unless they thought they hired "a spec ops infantry."  Whoops.

Nope.  By starting the fire, Zaeed is putting the existance of the refinery in danger thus jeapordizing the mission.  By setting up a situation where the team is forced to fight in a burning refinery to accomplish the mission, he's also endangering the lives of the team....and for no good reason.  Killing Vido is NOT the mission no matter what Zaeed says on the renegade path.

-Polaris

How is putting the refinery in danger jeopardinzing the mission, when the mission was to liberate the refinery?  There is no iron clad one way to do that.  The company wants it taken care of.  This is one method.  May not be the most elegant or safest way, but it works.  Vido's gone by either escaping or burning.  Mission accomplished.

Also, the team is not in danger, as Shepard did not state they were.  They did state not sacrificing lives for the mission.  I don't believe they were referring to theirs, however.

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...
"Burn you (explitives follow)" is a sure sign that Zaeed is losing it.  So is forgetting that his mission is to liberate the refinery NOT to destroy it.  Trying to argue otherwise is simply silly at this point.

At that point, the pipe behind Vido was already whistling.  Zaeed was enacting his plan.  He shot deliberately at the pipe.  Not Vido.  He had a plan to "open the gate".  That is not something I believe an emotional fellow would be able to pull off.

You seem to believe "liberating the refinery" only involves not blowing it up.  I can liberate a toy from a child by destroying the toy.  I can liberate many other things from other things by destroying said things.  This is not a diffcult concept.

Pretty much the whole darn game including TIM aknowledge Shepard as a superior leader.

TIM and Miranda's opinion of Shepard do not make Shepard a superior leader.  I need actions.

No where in that description indicates that Zaeed is a good leader.  A 20 year private in the French Foreign Legion is about the most badass soldier you'd ever have the misfortune to meet.  His NCOs and officers would draw open his experience and give him the most difficult individual tasks to accomplish.

That doesn't make him a good leader.  Being "badass soldier" is different from being "effective combat leader".

And that wasn't the point I was making.  But whatever you're talking about some French Foreign bull**** thing, sure.

Just a few pages ago, another poster posted every single block of Zaeed's text WITHOUT bias and then explained how that showed he was a poor leader.  I have shown that by PME standards, Zaeed is not a good leader using the game actions and text (often text you quote) as evidence.

What more do you want?  At this point I think you are just being stubborn.

-Polaris

Could you point to where Zaeed is being a poor leader?  I would appreciate that, thank you.

[IanPolaris]

smudboy wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Cover is highly imperfect protection against explosions. It's one reason why the fire grenade is so good against people in cover.  They were NOT fine.

In the ME2 universe, cover is God Mode.

Nope.  There are lots of ways you can get killed even under cover.  Likewise you can kill things under cover.  Some of the playing advice even tells you how to shoot powes and some weapons around corners.   I've died "under cover"  too often to believe it's God Mode.

Also the cut-scene clearly chose the place going up and the team is too close to the explosions....not to mention the fact the team now has to accomplish the mission by fighing in a building that is liable to send them into low orbit at any time.  Not cool and totally unnecessary.

The mission is still to LIBERATE the refinery NOT blow it up.  You don't know what Eldfell-Ashland would like.  I can, however, infer that they would not hire spec-ops infantry if they wanted the place destroyed.  Nuking it from orbit would get rid of the installation and Vido just fine and likely would be cheaper.

That tells me that the people that hired out the mission DO want the place intact and thus Zaeed IS endangering the mission.

Liberating a refinery involves killing Vido.  It can also involve killing Vido via blowing up the refinery.

No it does not.  If you drive the Blue Suns out, you accomplish the mission.  Killing Vido is NOT the mission.

If I don't know what Eldfell-Ashland wants, and we have the same info, neither do you.

Eldfell-Ashland hired "the galaxy's most feared bounty hunter and mercenary soldier."  Unless they thought they hired "a spec ops infantry."  Whoops.

If Edfell-Ashland didn't care, they could have nuked the plant from orbit and gotten everyone.  Such an approach would not only be easier but probably cheaper.  The fact they did NOT is proof positive they wanted the place intact.

Nope.  By starting the fire, Zaeed is putting the existance of the refinery in danger thus jeapordizing the mission.  By setting up a situation where the team is forced to fight in a burning refinery to accomplish the mission, he's also endangering the lives of the team....and for no good reason.  Killing Vido is NOT the mission no matter what Zaeed says on the renegade path.

-Polaris

How is putting the refinery in danger jeopardinzing the mission, when the mission was to liberate the refinery?  There is no iron clad one way to do that.  The company wants it taken care of.  This is one method.  May not be the most elegant or safest way, but it works.  Vido's gone by either escaping or burning.  Mission accomplished.

Also, the team is not in danger, as Shepard did not state they were.  They did state not sacrificing lives for the mission.  I don't believe they were referring to theirs, however.

Play the Paragon Path.  Shepard DOES clearly say that Zaeed is putting the mission and the team in danger and even (if you do it after the suicide mission) can walk away and let Vido burn in his own fire as just desserts.  The mission was to liberate the refinery.  NOT to destroy it and NOT to kill Vido.  Zaeed loses sight of this and goes cowboy.....which is a sure sign he's a bad leader.

Now some others have suggested that maybe Zaeed should have grown into a good leader under a Paragon Shep using the Paragon loyalty override, but that is another topic.

-Polaris

Edit: I do believe that the Devs when asked about this have also said Zaeed was a bad leader for pretty much the same reasons I and others have outlined.  It's obvious to most of us.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 août 2010 - 09:01 .

[IoCaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You are wrong.

You only get that dialog if Shepard chooses the renegade path. Just because Zaeed says it's his mission:

1) Does not mean he's in charge.
2) Does not mean he's the leader.

In fact in all the missions in ME2, Shepard leads the missions.

-Polaris

I'm not understanding the distinction here. It's a viable choice for the player to let Zaeed keep the lead and complete the mission on his terms. He leads the mission unless you override his authority and take direct command. It works just fine if you follow along and let him complete the mission as he wants. It doesn't break the game or the narrative in any way. You still get a mission complete screen and go on to your next port of call. 

The game and mission are structured that way. There's no option to stop Zaeed from taking the initiative and knocking the valve loose or otherwise finding another path into the refinery. Was there another option to drive Vido and his thugs from their position and gaining access to the refinery that I missed?

Nope.  Shepard is in charge.  Shepard gives commands to his squaddies.  That is crystal clear from the start.  What Zaeed does is what in the military we sometimes call "Going Cowboy" and actively did his own thing without regard to the team or the mission.   It's a sure fire sign that he is not a good leader....do the Paragon Version and Shepard basically (and rather brutally) explains why what Zaeed did was stupid and not showing good leadership (or followership for that matter).

-Polaris

The renegade path is just as legitimate a choice for the player as the paragon. That particular option gets the mission accomplished in a very effective if not overly scrupulous manner. Regardless, it's Zaeed that takes the contract and he has the lead from the very start. As soon as the squad lands on the planet he immediately takes command. The only response that is required from Shepard is the choice of positioning the squad members because there's no mechanism built in to the game to take direct control of an individual squad mate. The actual mission orders can be left for Zaeed to dictate and the mission can be successfully completed just fine.

[IanPolaris]

IoCaster wrote...

The renegade path is just as legitimate a choice for the player as the paragon. That particular option gets the mission accomplished in a very effective if not overly scrupulous manner. Regardless, it's Zaeed that takes the contract and he has the lead from the very start. As soon as the squad lands on the planet he immediately takes command. The only response that is required from Shepard is the choice of positioning the squad members because there's no mechanism built in to the game to take direct control of an individual squad mate. The actual mission orders can be left for Zaeed to dictate and the mission can be successfully completed just fine.

No he doesn't, not even in the renegade path.  Zaeed tries to pull rank, but it's still Shepard's mission all the way to the end even as a Renegade.  All the major and tactical descisions are Sheps which makes this Shep's mission not Zaeed's.

-Polaris

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  There are lots of ways you can get killed even under cover.  Likewise you can kill things under cover.  Some of the playing advice even tells you how to shoot powes and some weapons around corners.   I've died "under cover"  too often to believe it's God Mode.

Also the cut-scene clearly chose the place going up and the team is too close to the explosions....not to mention the fact the team now has to accomplish the mission by fighing in a building that is liable to send them into low orbit at any time.  Not cool and totally unnecessary.

Yet during that entire time, none can die from said explosions.

No it does not.  If you drive the Blue Suns out, you accomplish the mission.  Killing Vido is NOT the mission.

So killing the leader of the Blue Suns wouldn't drive the Blue Suns out?

If Edfell-Ashland didn't care, they could have nuked the plant from orbit and gotten everyone.  Such an approach would not only be easier but probably cheaper.  The fact they did NOT is proof positive they wanted the place intact.

Maybe they did consider that, but were hoping that Zaeed would just rambo it all the way without blowing up the place?

This is in fact PROOF POSITIVE they took the cheaper way out by simply hiring a merc.

Play the Paragon Path.  Shepard DOES clearly say that Zaeed is putting the mission and the team in danger and even (if you do it after the suicide mission) can walk away and let Vido burn in his own fire as just desserts.  The mission was to liberate the refinery.  NOT to destroy it and NOT to kill Vido.  Zaeed loses sight of this and goes cowboy.....which is a sure sign he's a bad leader.

Now some others have suggested that maybe Zaeed should have grown into a good leader under a Paragon Shep using the Paragon loyalty override, but that is another topic.

-Polaris

Quote?

Edit: I do believe that the Devs when asked about this have also said Zaeed was a bad leader for pretty much the same reasons I and others have outlined.  It's obvious to most of us.

That's nice, but their intent is irrelevant.  What we get counts.  We observe the narrative as objectively as possible.

[IanPolaris]

smudboy wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  There are lots of ways you can get killed even under cover.  Likewise you can kill things under cover.  Some of the playing advice even tells you how to shoot powes and some weapons around corners.   I've died "under cover"  too often to believe it's God Mode.

Also the cut-scene clearly chose the place going up and the team is too close to the explosions....not to mention the fact the team now has to accomplish the mission by fighing in a building that is liable to send them into low orbit at any time.  Not cool and totally unnecessary.

Yet during that entire time, none can die from said explosions.

You are committing a logical fallacy, "because of after the fact, before the fact".  You are trying to use the game-mechanical fact that no character or NPC can die in a cut scene as justification for the in-character decisions presumably without knowledge of this game mechanical fact.  If you look at the cutscene objectively and forget you are in a game, then it is clear that the team is not in a good place when the Zaeed pulls his little stunt.

No it does not.  If you drive the Blue Suns out, you accomplish the mission.  Killing Vido is NOT the mission.

So killing the leader of the Blue Suns wouldn't drive the Blue Suns out?

Not necessarily.  The second in command may decide to stay.  You just don't know.  You DO know that your mission is to preserve the refinery and drive the blue suns out.  Killing Vido is not in the mission brief (literally not...it's been posted in this very thread).

If Edfell-Ashland didn't care, they could have nuked the plant from orbit and gotten everyone.  Such an approach would not only be easier but probably cheaper.  The fact they did NOT is proof positive they wanted the place intact.

Maybe they did consider that, but were hoping that Zaeed would just rambo it all the way without blowing up the place?

This is in fact PROOF POSITIVE they took the cheaper way out by simply hiring a merc.

By the 22nd century, Tac-Nukes would be dirt cheap.  Frankly they are dirt-cheap right now when you compare that to the support of a special ops unit.  So hiring the "best" merc in the business is not necessarily cheaper.  Chances are in fact it's not.

Play the Paragon Path.  Shepard DOES clearly say that Zaeed is putting the mission and the team in danger and even (if you do it after the suicide mission) can walk away and let Vido burn in his own fire as just desserts.  The mission was to liberate the refinery.  NOT to destroy it and NOT to kill Vido.  Zaeed loses sight of this and goes cowboy.....which is a sure sign he's a bad leader.

Now some others have suggested that maybe Zaeed should have grown into a good leader under a Paragon Shep using the Paragon loyalty override, but that is another topic.

-Polaris

Quote?

It's been quoted already on this thread.  Play the Paragon side and Shep really lays into Zaeed about putting lives and the mission in danger.  That is from memory, but IIRC it is very close to a direct quote, and I do know that others HAVE quoted it.

Edit: I do believe that the Devs when asked about this have also said Zaeed was a bad leader for pretty much the same reasons I and others have outlined.  It's obvious to most of us.

That's nice, but their intent is irrelevant.  What we get counts.  We observe the narrative as objectively as possible.

Um no.  We have the Devs intent and the actual Zaeed dialog that all point to the same thing.  The only one that seems to think otherwise is you (and one or two others).  By professional military leadership stnadards, Zaeed isn't up to snuff.  Why is that so hard for you to accept?

-Polaris

[smudboy]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
You are committing a logical fallacy, "because of after the fact, before the fact".  You are trying to use the game-mechanical fact that no character or NPC can die in a cut scene as justification for the in-character decisions presumably without knowledge of this game mechanical fact.  If you look at the cutscene objectively and forget you are in a game, then it is clear that the team is not in a good place when the Zaeed pulls his little stunt.
[/quote]
Okay, let's say I am committing a logical fallacy.

Let's look at it objectively.

1) Zaeed blows up pipe.
2) Shepard and squad run for cover.
3) Stuff.
4) Location where Shepard and squad were hiding behind were fine.

[quote]
Not necessarily.  The second in command may decide to stay.  You just don't know.  You DO know that your mission is to preserve the refinery and drive the blue suns out.  Killing Vido is not in the mission brief (literally not...it's been posted in this very thread).
[/quote]
Nothing in the mission parameters said to preserve the refinery.

[quote]
By the 22nd century, Tac-Nukes would be dirt cheap.  Frankly they are dirt-cheap right now when you compare that to the support of a special ops unit.  So hiring the "best" merc in the business is not necessarily cheaper.  Chances are in fact it's not.
[/quote]
We've no idea.

[quote]
Quote?
[/quote]

It's been quoted already on this thread.  Play the Paragon side and Shep really lays into Zaeed about putting lives and the mission in danger.  That is from memory, but IIRC it is very close to a direct quote, and I do know that others HAVE quoted it.
[/quote]
Find me the quote/link if you please.

[quote]
Um no.  We have the Devs intent and the actual Zaeed dialog that all point to the same thing.  The only one that seems to think otherwise is you (and one or two others).  By professional military leadership stnadards, Zaeed isn't up to snuff.  Why is that so hard for you to accept?

-Polaris[/quote]
Um no I don't care what they thought.  What we get is what's important.

Please stop whining about your professional military blah blah blah sh+t.  It just proves you're biased.  I require in game evidence to support your viewpoint.

[IoCaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

The renegade path is just as legitimate a choice for the player as the paragon. That particular option gets the mission accomplished in a very effective if not overly scrupulous manner. Regardless, it's Zaeed that takes the contract and he has the lead from the very start. As soon as the squad lands on the planet he immediately takes command. The only response that is required from Shepard is the choice of positioning the squad members because there's no mechanism built in to the game to take direct control of an individual squad mate. The actual mission orders can be left for Zaeed to dictate and the mission can be successfully completed just fine.

No he doesn't, not even in the renegade path.  Zaeed tries to pull rank, but it's still Shepard's mission all the way to the end even as a Renegade.  All the major and tactical descisions are Sheps which makes this Shep's mission not Zaeed's.

-Polaris

Show me where Shepard has a choice to find an alternate route into the refinery. Show me where Shepard has a choice to stop Zaeed before he knocks that valve loose, starts the fire and drives Vido and his group of thugs off. Zaeed is calling the shots on this mission, not Shepard. Zaeed effectively realizes the danger that his squad is in by being at a disadvantageous tactical position. He takes the initiative to turn the tables on Vido and gains access to the refinery in the most efficient way available. That's effective combat leadership by any objective measure.

The player has the choice of taking control after the die is cast and the refinery is ablaze. Or Shepard can choose to let Zaeed get the job done his way. Zaeed has his objective (kill Vido) and proceeds to lead the team to successfully complete the mission on his terms. It's eerily reminiscent to the path that a ruthless Shepard charts on Torfan when he/she takes down the Batarians. I'm trying to look at this objectively and Zaeed is gangbusters at getting the job done when everything is on the line. Not a bad choice for a squad leader on a suicide mission where the stakes are high.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
You are committing a logical fallacy, "because of after the fact, before the fact".  You are trying to use the game-mechanical fact that no character or NPC can die in a cut scene as justification for the in-character decisions presumably without knowledge of this game mechanical fact.  If you look at the cutscene objectively and forget you are in a game, then it is clear that the team is not in a good place when the Zaeed pulls his little stunt.
[/quote]
Okay, let's say I am committing a logical fallacy.

Let's look at it objectively.

1) Zaeed blows up pipe.
2) Shepard and squad run for cover.
3) Stuff.
4) Location where Shepard and squad were hiding behind were fine.
[/quote]

That thing you simply call "Stuff" is the entire room going up in flames around them...the same room in which the squad is running for cover.  I'd say that very definately in a real world situation would involve putting the squad in danger.  Using "cut scene immunity" to argue otherwise is committing a logical fallacy.

[quote]
[quote]
Not necessarily.  The second in command may decide to stay.  You just don't know.  You DO know that your mission is to preserve the refinery and drive the blue suns out.  Killing Vido is not in the mission brief (literally not...it's been posted in this very thread).
[/quote]
Nothing in the mission parameters said to preserve the refinery.
[/quote]

What part of liberate the refinery did you miss?  In order to LIBERATE it, you have to preserve it.

[quote]
[quote]
By the 22nd century, Tac-Nukes would be dirt cheap.  Frankly they are dirt-cheap right now when you compare that to the support of a special ops unit.  So hiring the "best" merc in the business is not necessarily cheaper.  Chances are in fact it's not.
[/quote]
We've no idea.
[/quote]

Actually we do.  We can look at DoD expenses for tac-nukes and we can pretty reasonably say that a legal tac-nuke would only be a million or so USD (tac-nuke/hiroshima grade) more or less.  The reason that nuclear powers still stockpile nukes (or I should say one reason) is for their bang, nuclear weapons are extremely cheap.

[quote]
[quote]
Quote?
[/quote]

It's been quoted already on this thread.  Play the Paragon side and Shep really lays into Zaeed about putting lives and the mission in danger.  That is from memory, but IIRC it is very close to a direct quote, and I do know that others HAVE quoted it.
[/quote]
Find me the quote/link if you please.
[/quote]

Go fish.  You aren't worth enough of my time.  It's been quoted (on or about page 9 or 10 IIRC) and the game files are available if you'd bother to check.  Even if I quoted them, you'd still deny it, so it isn't worth my time...and really neither are you.

[quote]
[quote]
Um no.  We have the Devs intent and the actual Zaeed dialog that all point to the same thing.  The only one that seems to think otherwise is you (and one or two others).  By professional military leadership stnadards, Zaeed isn't up to snuff.  Why is that so hard for you to accept?

-Polaris[/quote]
Um no I don't care what they thought.  What we get is what's important.

Please stop whining about your professional military blah blah blah sh+t.  It just proves you're biased.  I require in game evidence to support your viewpoint.
[/quote]

You won't accept any game evidence.  I am not submitting professional military standards as evidence.  I am presenting them as standards by which leadership decisions may be judged.  The game actions when judged against those standards show that Zaeed is a poor leader.

If that makes be biased, then it makes pretty much any basic military leadership instruction biased too.  Nice.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

IoCaster wrote...

Show me where Shepard has a choice to find an alternate route into the refinery. Show me where Shepard has a choice to stop Zaeed before he knocks that valve loose, starts the fire and drives Vido and his group of thugs off. Zaeed is calling the shots on this mission, not Shepard. Zaeed effectively realizes the danger that his squad is in by being at a disadvantageous tactical position. He takes the initiative to turn the tables on Vido and gains access to the refinery in the most efficient way available. That's effective combat leadership by any objective measure.

Shepard takes point and directs the squad.  You are committing the same logical fallacy that Smudboy is.  You can not use an OOC game mechanic to argue after the fact an in-game character belief or position.  It's very clear from the beginning (as with ALL missions in ME2) that Shepard is in charge.

The player has the choice of taking control after the die is cast and the refinery is ablaze. Or Shepard can choose to let Zaeed get the job done his way. Zaeed has his objective (kill Vido) and proceeds to lead the team to successfully complete the mission on his terms. It's eerily reminiscent to the path that a ruthless Shepard charts on Torfan when he/she takes down the Batarians. I'm trying to look at this objectively and Zaeed is gangbusters at getting the job done when everything is on the line. Not a bad choice for a squad leader on a suicide mission where the stakes are high.

The player is in charge the whole mission.  Zaeed obeys your orders not the other way around except when he goes cowboy and endangers everyone.

-Polaris

[IoCaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

Show me where Shepard has a choice to find an alternate route into the refinery. Show me where Shepard has a choice to stop Zaeed before he knocks that valve loose, starts the fire and drives Vido and his group of thugs off. Zaeed is calling the shots on this mission, not Shepard. Zaeed effectively realizes the danger that his squad is in by being at a disadvantageous tactical position. He takes the initiative to turn the tables on Vido and gains access to the refinery in the most efficient way available. That's effective combat leadership by any objective measure.

Shepard takes point and directs the squad.  You are committing the same logical fallacy that Smudboy is.  You can not use an OOC game mechanic to argue after the fact an in-game character belief or position.  It's very clear from the beginning (as with ALL missions in ME2) that Shepard is in charge.

I'm really just pointing out what choices are available to the player. I'm not convinced that Shepard is in charge of the mission if his/her choices are non-existent. If the player can stop Zaeed from starting the fire or finding an alternate route into the refinery, I haven't seen it. As far as game mechanics are concerned, that's an inherent limitation that can't be overridden by the player. Why take a position that it's not relevant?

IoCaster wrote...
The player has the choice of taking control after the die is cast and the refinery is ablaze. Or Shepard can choose to let Zaeed get the job done his way. Zaeed has his objective (kill Vido) and proceeds to lead the team to successfully complete the mission on his terms. It's eerily reminiscent to the path that a ruthless Shepard charts on Torfan when he/she takes down the Batarians. I'm trying to look at this objectively and Zaeed is gangbusters at getting the job done when everything is on the line. Not a bad choice for a squad leader on a suicide mission where the stakes are high.

IanPolaris wrote...
The player is in charge the whole mission.  Zaeed obeys your orders not the other way around except when he goes cowboy and endangers everyone.

-Polaris

This only comes into effect when the option is presented to go paragon or renegade with regard to saving the refinery and the workers. Everything else is simply rendered down to positioning specific squad members or deciding what powers or talents they deploy on command.

In any case, I'm glad that we've gotten past my unfortunate display of infantile and drunken misbehavior and I'm enjoying the discussion. I'm halfway out the door for my Friday meet and greet with cronies, so I'll respond to any follow up comments later. My best regards to all forum participants and I wish everyone a fun weekend.

[smudboy]

IanPolaris wrote...
That thing you simply call "Stuff" is the entire room going up in flames around them...the same room in which the squad is running for cover.  I'd say that very definately in a real world situation would involve putting the squad in danger.  Using "cut scene immunity" to argue otherwise is committing a logical fallacy.

What logical fallacy is that?

And that was a room?  Weren't they out in the open?

What part of liberate the refinery did you miss?  In order to LIBERATE it, you have to preserve it.

What part of liberate the refinery did you miss?  In order to LIBERATE something, you have to take it away from that something.

Actually we do.  We can look at DoD expenses for tac-nukes and we can pretty reasonably say that a legal tac-nuke would only be a million or so USD (tac-nuke/hiroshima grade) more or less.  The reason that nuclear powers still stockpile nukes (or I should say one reason) is for their bang, nuclear weapons are extremely cheap.

Or you can actually point to the game.  Oh wait gee golly you can't and you just made sh+t up again.

Go fish.  You aren't worth enough of my time.  It's been quoted (on or about page 9 or 10 IIRC) and the game files are available if you'd bother to check.  Even if I quoted them, you'd still deny it, so it isn't worth my time...and really neither are you.

So your argument isn't worthy of my time?  Am I beneath simple questions to your argument?  All I'm asking you is to point to what you mean, to quote.  It's the least you can do.  Else all you're saying is inr your imagination.

You won't accept any game evidence.  I am not submitting professional military standards as evidence.  I am presenting them as standards by which leadership decisions may be judged.  The game actions when judged against those standards show that Zaeed is a poor leader.

If that makes be biased, then it makes pretty much any basic military leadership instruction biased too.  Nice.

-Polaris

I'm waiting for some evidence. Please point to it or quote it.  It's not hard.  You just type out what you see and hear objectively.  Or point to a youtube video.

I am not making subjective observations, or comments.  I am merely looking at the scenes and going "Zaeed does this.  This happens.  Shepard does this." etc. In fact I described a few scenes in detail the last page or so.  That's all I'm asking, for you to make objective observations.  If you can't do that, then you're biased, and we can never come to any clear, objective understanding.  Am I really just wasting my time with your imagination and bias?  I would hope not.