77 réponses à ce sujet

[jklinders]

In the long run, what would hurt the colonization program more. The(supposedly) irreplaceable loss of a spaceport of one colony or the complete failure of Alliance security to protect the lives of the people who make colonization possible? I am very certain the adverts for recruiting new colonists for the crater of the Franklyn colony will play out real well back on Earth.

[Peridian]

Like I said, we don't know enough about the choice we had to make.

What if the spaceport (and industrial complex if I recall correctly) was important for the Systems Alliance Navy? Will sacrificing these several hundreds/thousands save countless more in the future when the colony is still active? Or is the coming of the Reapers not something worthy of notice? Will the colony even matter when it comes to the matter of the Reapers? Like I said before, we don't have enough information to make an accurate estimate of how many lives (if any at all) will be preserved by saving the spaceport.



Perhaps it will make a difference, perhaps it won't. It's something to consider at least.



I'm playing the devil's advocate here, as it seems people ignore the (possible) importance of the spaceport when the saving of lives is just around the corner.



Personally, I thought it looked like this:



A: Save a few thousand lives,

or

B: Preserve an entire colony.



Are those few thousand worth it over the importance of the colony?



P.S.: If this isn't a matter of "letting a few die to save the many" I wouldn't hesitate to save the City. It's just that I think there's more to it than just that.

[Dean_the_Young]

The city saves more lives in the immediate time, at the cost of abandoning the colony and the lives in the space port and the ability to defend that part of space... which will certainly be detrimental in the Alliance's ability to fight the Reapers as well, a war with much greater consequences. While the colony itself is unlikely to be decisive, you can only give up so many colonies and planets before you run out of places to fight from. And any handicapping against the Reapers is only likely to produce more casualties than exist on that planet alone.

On other hand, an argument I haven't heard yet is that those colonists can resettle on other worlds as well, strengthening them (though not the Alliance as much as it could have been). That particular sector is likely lost to piracy now and the Reapers later, but other areas can be safer.

Of course, those enlarged colonies could be the ones that were going to be overrun, and so moving the colonists just means they die somewhere else.

It's a rare case in which the Paragon option does have a strategic justification , and it does come down to more what do you, personally, think is likely to happen and what do you think is more important to surviving the Reapers. Strategic width and the ability for the Alliance to expand? Or concentration, and putting all the population into fewer baskets?

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 05 août 2010 - 04:56 .

[Nightwriter]

jklinders wrote...

In the long run, what would hurt the colonization program more. The(supposedly) irreplaceable loss of a spaceport of one colony or the complete failure of Alliance security to protect the lives of the people who make colonization possible? I am very certain the adverts for recruiting new colonists for the crater of the Franklyn colony will play out real well back on Earth.

That is a very good point. Just think how much colonist enrollment dropped after the attack on Eden Prime.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

jklinders wrote...

In the long run, what would hurt the colonization program more. The(supposedly) irreplaceable loss of a spaceport of one colony or the complete failure of Alliance security to protect the lives of the people who make colonization possible? I am very certain the adverts for recruiting new colonists for the crater of the Franklyn colony will play out real well back on Earth.

That is a very good point. Just think how much colonist enrollment dropped after the attack on Eden Prime.

Colony investment and enrollment would drop either way, really: Eden Prime didn't have to be abandoned at all, after all. The spaceport is effectively irreplaceable for all intents and purposes, something we never have reason to doubt, and isn't going to be rebuilt in a relevant timespan to turn back the clock for the colony.

One more point that could matter much is whether Shepard is a Paragon/Renegade: while a Renegade has an easier time justifying either way, the massive loss of face that would/could bring down a Paragon Shepard's reputation if his choice were revealed could act as a significant factor. A Paragon Shepard who knows the importance of his Paragon reputation can easily see the situation as one in which, even if saving the space port was something that would overall help in the war, the loss of Shepard's own influence and reputation from doing so could outweigh that benefit.

[Dave of Canada]

jklinders wrote...

In the long run, what would hurt the colonization program more. The(supposedly) irreplaceable loss of a spaceport of one colony or the complete failure of Alliance security to protect the lives of the people who make colonization possible? I am very certain the adverts for recruiting new colonists for the crater of the Franklyn colony will play out real well back on Earth.

The destruction of the Spaceport on the other hand would probably scare the people who are planning to go into the Alliance, with many losses and buildings being destroyed - a marine's life wouldn't be considered by the average citizen. While the destruction of the Colony, killing many civilians, could also have a positive effect on recruitment: "AVENGING THE COLONISTS" and all that.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

I saved the spaceport, because I thought it would be better for the colony in the long run.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, there would be a colony in the long run, so yes.



Colonists or colony: which do you favor? The question.

[jklinders]

Meh, it's all speculation with a random arbitrary choice thrown in that has very real bearing on the larger picture. It would just be nice to see some human marines outside of Shepard's squad that don't fold like umbrellas to the first Batarian terrorist squad that comes along.

[Dave of Canada]

jklinders wrote...

It would just be nice to see some human marines outside of Shepard's squad that don't fold like umbrellas to the first Batarian terrorist squad that comes along.

TRANSFORMERS, MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

jklinders wrote...

Meh, it's all speculation with a random arbitrary choice thrown in that has very real bearing on the larger picture. It would just be nice to see some human marines outside of Shepard's squad that don't fold like umbrellas to the first Batarian terrorist squad that comes along.

Like these human marines?

[LorDC]

"We don't have enough information to make decision" is bull****. Trying to say something like "spaceport is useless without people" or "spaceport is uber important to Alliance Navy" is bull**** too. In-game narrative clearly tells us what is at stake. It's "few thousand lives" vs "operating colony". Anything else is just trying to get away from discussion.

[LorDC]

Personally I choose save spaceport. Why? Looking at this idiot mechanic on Horizon I can't see how few thousands of those whiners could be more important than colony infrastructure.

[jklinders]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

jklinders wrote...

Meh, it's all speculation with a random arbitrary choice thrown in that has very real bearing on the larger picture. It would just be nice to see some human marines outside of Shepard's squad that don't fold like umbrellas to the first Batarian terrorist squad that comes along.

Like these human marines?

There is always one exception that only exists to prove the rule. Colonists at Feros don't count as they were not marines so that crew is the only set of holdouts I have seen so far that was actually able to survive more than 5 minutes.

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Colony investment and enrollment would drop either way, really: Eden Prime didn't have to be abandoned at all, after all. The spaceport is effectively irreplaceable for all intents and purposes, something we never have reason to doubt, and isn't going to be rebuilt in a relevant timespan to turn back the clock for the colony.

Right. You're going to lose either way, so you might as well lose and save some lives than lose and kill some lives.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

One more point that could matter much is whether Shepard is a Paragon/Renegade: while a Renegade has an easier time justifying either way, the massive loss of face that would/could bring down a Paragon Shepard's reputation if his choice were revealed could act as a significant factor. A Paragon Shepard who knows the importance of his Paragon reputation can easily see the situation as one in which, even if saving the space port was something that would overall help in the war, the loss of Shepard's own influence and reputation from doing so could outweigh that benefit.

I certainly never think in terms of my reputation. I always think in terms of my conscience.

Reputation, lol. My name's mud anyway. Everyone thinks I'm nuts.

[Alamar2078]

I think the choice is a lot harder than just "material gain". There's also the fact that the terrorists want to drive you out of that section of space. Basically the choice is do you want to save the colonist's lives or do you want to deny the terrorists their goal of driving you off planet..



IMHO this sort of choice that is actually HARD really defines an RPG. After all who really wants to make just "easy" choices.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

Alamar2078 wrote...

I think the choice is a lot harder than just "material gain". There's also the fact that the terrorists want to drive you out of that section of space. Basically the choice is do you want to save the colonist's lives or do you want to deny the terrorists their goal of driving you off planet..

IMHO this sort of choice that is actually HARD really defines an RPG. After all who really wants to make just "easy" choices.

That's one of the things I was thinking about too. I really didn't want the terrorists to win.

[Falcon509]

I depends on my character. On my "knight in shining armor" paragon Shepards I save the city.

On my "by the book" military Shepard, I saved the infrastructure.

Funny. I don't have any real renegade Shepards. It's either the good Shepard (heh puns) or military Shepards.

At any rate, saving the city saves the people but royally screws the colony's progression. Saving the infrastructure will kill the colonist but leaves the colony open for repopulation.

The latter choice does suck but it's the only way to leave the colony as a viable option for expansion.

[Nightwriter]

Well, no one wants terrorists to win, but neither do I want thousands of people to die for the sake of my pride.

I just don't see how this little colony on this little moon is such a big chip in the grand scheme of things. It's one colony. The Reapers could wipe it out in a second. They could wipe most colonies out in a second.

[Juls1616]

I always save the city

[Falcon509]

Nightwriter wrote...

Well, no one wants terrorists to win, but neither do I want thousands of people to die for the sake of my pride.

I just don't see how this little colony on this little moon is such a big chip in the grand scheme of things. It's one colony. The Reapers could wipe it out in a second. They could wipe most colonies out in a second.

It's all about strategy. Colonies cans be used as staging points for military forces. Could be used for refugees. It could be used like Eden Prime as a source of food. It could be a big manufacturing site.

In conventional war an army has choices on how to wipe out the enemy. One of the most effective methods is to destroy your enemy's ability to feed, shelter, and arm itself. If you destroy an army's means of making weapons for instance, they'll eventually lose the ability to shoot back. If you destroy or capture your enemy's food supply, then they starve. All these choices lead to demoralization and eventual surrender of the enemy. Then there is no need to fight a bloody campaign to destroy them completely.

It is true that the Reapers can wipe out entire colonies easily but their tried-and-true methods of doing so have been shot full of holes. With no control of the Citadel, they will be forced into a costly war with organic races. Any attacks on a colony will be responded to with force. In essence, they will be forced into a more conventional war.

At the same time, it's not just the Reapers that are a threat. Many races still seem to view the Council races as enemies and would take steps to harrass or kill them. Any infrastructure and lives are valuable.

Anyways. I've ranted long enough. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Colony investment and enrollment would drop either way, really: Eden Prime didn't have to be abandoned at all, after all. The spaceport is effectively irreplaceable for all intents and purposes, something we never have reason to doubt, and isn't going to be rebuilt in a relevant timespan to turn back the clock for the colony.

Right. You're going to lose either way, so you might as well lose and save some lives than lose and kill some lives.

Shepard only kills lives in this choice if you posit that he is the one responsible for launching the missiles in the first place. In either case you accept that some people will die and others will live at some point in the future.

I certainly never think in terms of my reputation. I always think in terms of my conscience.

Reputation, lol. My name's mud anyway. Everyone thinks I'm nuts.

While the Council may scoff at Shepard, most of the galaxy does not. Shepard's reputation, the weight of it and how it can be used to help others, is something your conscious should take into account. If one has a reputation that people listen to and can be used to gather the galaxy together against the Reapers, then throwing it away for small gains would be just as irresponsible or murderous as what you feel the missile choice represents.

[Dean_the_Young]

Falcon509 wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Well, no one wants terrorists to win, but neither do I want thousands of people to die for the sake of my pride.

I just don't see how this little colony on this little moon is such a big chip in the grand scheme of things. It's one colony. The Reapers could wipe it out in a second. They could wipe most colonies out in a second.

It's all about strategy. Colonies cans be used as staging points for military forces. Could be used for refugees. It could be used like Eden Prime as a source of food. It could be a big manufacturing site.

In conventional war an army has choices on how to wipe out the enemy. One of the most effective methods is to destroy your enemy's ability to feed, shelter, and arm itself. If you destroy an army's means of making weapons for instance, they'll eventually lose the ability to shoot back. If you destroy or capture your enemy's food supply, then they starve. All these choices lead to demoralization and eventual surrender of the enemy. Then there is no need to fight a bloody campaign to destroy them completely.

It is true that the Reapers can wipe out entire colonies easily but their tried-and-true methods of doing so have been shot full of holes. With no control of the Citadel, they will be forced into a costly war with organic races. Any attacks on a colony will be responded to with force. In essence, they will be forced into a more conventional war.

At the same time, it's not just the Reapers that are a threat. Many races still seem to view the Council races as enemies and would take steps to harrass or kill them. Any infrastructure and lives are valuable.

Anyways. I've ranted long enough. 

No, that's actually a well reasoned and written explanation of how even one more colony can help during the war to come with the Reapers... and the other constant conflicts that exist as well.

[Falcon509]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
No, that's actually a well reasoned and written explanation of how even one more colony can help during the war to come with the Reapers... and the other constant conflicts that exist as well.

I know. I just doubt many people would care to look that deeply into it. It is a game after all. If I were on the Bioware team for ME3 though, this is the direction I would take it. It might sound horrible to say but conventional wars are far more entertaining than slaughter.