77 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

Falcon509 wrote...

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.

Coulda would shoulda. Ultimately, you're sacrificing a hell of a lot of civilians on the vague idea that this depleted colony might be some sort of use in a war against a race of hyper-advanced killing machines who've been doing their thing successfully for eons.

It's little more than a flat out leap of faith. It has no place in a reasoned course of action.

It ultimately boils down to what the sacrifice of thousands is gaining humanity. This concept that it would miraculously happen to be the very staging base that somehow contributes to the defeat of a vastly superior opponent is a bit like letting a serial killer walk free because he might eventually father a child who figures out a cure for cancer. It's certainly possible, but the odds are terrible, and certainly not worth the deaths of thousands.

[Dean_the_Young]

How is 'human colony can be used' a leap of faith? Under what realistic circumstances could a working colony not serve the war effort?

[Falcon509]

JaegerBane wrote...

Coulda would shoulda. Ultimately, you're sacrificing a hell of a lot of civilians on the vague idea that this depleted colony might be some sort of use in a war against a race of hyper-advanced killing machines who've been doing their thing successfully for eons.

It's little more than a flat out leap of faith. It has no place in a reasoned course of action.

It ultimately boils down to what the sacrifice of thousands is gaining humanity. This concept that it would miraculously happen to be the very staging base that somehow contributes to the defeat of a vastly superior opponent is a bit like letting a serial killer walk free because he might eventually father a child who figures out a cure for cancer. It's certainly possible, but the odds are terrible, and certainly not worth the deaths of thousands.

I was merely providing examples of reasons a colony might be valuable to keep. We never see that in the game but the game does reference the importance of the colony being there. There was a great deal of potential there for Bioware to make a good story just from that one terrorist action but they chose a more expedient path with the mission.

It isn't a leap of faith decision. It's a hard one though and it's meant to be hard. I guarantee you that the spaceport isn't empty either. It's an Alliance facility so there are most definitely people there. It isn't like it's deserted; just waiting for the civilians to go to work. It's more accurately compared to saving a town of 1,000 people or a commercial sector, both in the middle of a vast desert.

You could save the town yes, but you'd doom the settlement as a whole. With the significant loss of investment, nobody would support repopulation. Investors are fickle like that. There'd be little reason to go back because there would be no backing and without support then all the benefits would be lost to the next inhabitants. In this case it would be lost to a group of terrorists.

If you save the commercial sector you would still save lives and in the process make sure that the settlement would thrive one day. Not only that but everything the settlement would produce would strengthen the owner's position overall. With a successful local economy, there would be reason for greater investment. Companies would choose to develop holdings there.

The benefits and consquences are less immediate and tangible. You are right that there is no guarantee that any good would come from choosing to kill the civilians and save the spaceport but the same could be said vice versa. 1,000 lives is a steep price, but in the grand scheme of things, so is abandoning a whole colony. One thing the game is clear on as well is that colonies are expensive, requiring significant investment and time to develop. By letting it fail, you are sacrificing a chunk of the economy.

It isn't black and white, and it isn't meant to be. Both choices will most definitely have negative reprecussions. My suggestion would be to avoid painting one decision and bad and one as good. They are in the horrible but gray area.

Modifié par Falcon509, 05 août 2010 - 08:56 .

[JaegerBane]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

How is 'human colony can be used' a leap of faith? Under what realistic circumstances could a working colony not serve the war effort?

Uh, gee, well, let me think -

Oh yeah, the kind of working circumtances that were repeated hundreds of times over, the last time the Reapers carried out their assault.

You're getting bogged down in pointless details. If an entire fleet can barely stop one Reaper, what on earth do you think a depleted colony is going to bring to the table when you're up against a fleet of them? Do you think the fact that combat cruisers will have adequate stocks of food and toilet rolls is going to make the blindest bit of difference?

[Falcon509]

JaegerBane wrote...
 Do you think the fact that combat cruisers will have adequate stocks of food and toilet rolls is going to make the blindest bit of difference?

Napolean stated quite accurately: "An army marches on it's stomach." Nobody will fight if they're starving.

[JaegerBane]

Falcon509 wrote...
I was merely providing examples of reasons a colony might be valuable to keep. We never see that in the game but the game does reference the importance of the colony being there. There was a great deal of potential there for Bioware to make a good story just from that one terrorist action but they chose a more expedient path with the mission.

Yeah, I recognise that. The point I'm making is that the sheer fact you can come up with possibilities doesn't change the fact that it's essentially pie in the sky - if it were just save the spaceport at no cost, then I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately, there is a cost - several thousand innocent people who the Systems Alliance have a mandate to protect. If you're going to cast aside that mandate in the pursuit of the greater good, it better be for a damn good reason - and justifying that cost on the fleeting hope that the colony will somehow play some sort of ridiculous deus ex machina part in the defeat of a super-advanced enemy that to date, has never been defeated, is just irresponsible.

I agree, it's not a black and white decision. But this is a choice between lives and economy, make no mistake - trying to bring in the Reapers as somehow relevant is little more than a smokescreen.

[JaegerBane]

Falcon509 wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
 Do you think the fact that combat cruisers will have adequate stocks of food and toilet rolls is going to make the blindest bit of difference?

Napolean stated quite accurately: "An army marches on it's stomach." Nobody will fight if they're starving.

Nobody will fight if they indoctrinated, either. I'm sure that the reason the Alliance had such a hard time with sovereign was nowt to do with firepower and everything to do with food.

I'm not really sure if you're just being facetious or whether you're following some line of argument, here, but if it's the latter, make your point.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 05 août 2010 - 09:09 .

[Falcon509]

JaegerBane wrote...

Yeah, I recognise that. The point I'm making is that the sheer fact you can come up with possibilities doesn't change the fact that it's essentially pie in the sky - if it were just save the spaceport at no cost, then I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately, there is a cost - several thousand innocent people who the Systems Alliance have a mandate to protect. If you're going to cast aside that mandate in the pursuit of the greater good, it better be for a damn good reason - and justifying that cost on the fleeting hope that the colony will somehow play some sort of ridiculous deus ex machina part in the defeat of a super-advanced enemy that to date, has never been defeated, is just irresponsible.

I agree, it's not a black and white decision. But this is a choice between lives and economy, make no mistake - trying to bring in the Reapers as somehow relevant is little more than a smokescreen.

Again, I believe you misinterpreted what I was saying. I was providing examples. I wasn't implying that the colony would be some secret weapon or something ridiculous like that. When making this decision however I will defer to military strategy. The colony's infrastructure, regardless of what it provides, is extremely valuable. The colonist's lives are extremely valuable. There is however a greater chance that by saving the colony one could ensure the safety of countless individuals. The Alliance wouldn't just build a colony on some desolate hellhole of a planet and in this case the colony is on a habitable one. There is obviously great value placed on developing the world that they did otherwise they wouldn't have built an expensive spaceport there.

There's a small amount of uninhabited, livable planets in the Mass Effect universe and by leaving such a significant investment to fail and die would be extremely risky for the Alliance. We aren't talking about just one colony after all... It's the whole planet. A complete planet of water, minerals, fuels, soil, etc... Let's not forget that it isn't only the Reapers that are a threat, it's other unfriendly races that are. Once the Reapers are taken care of, the Alliance would still need to deal with the batarians who largely view humanity as a blight on the galaxy and letting such vast resources fall into their hands would be reprehensible... Even downright irresponsible.

JaegerBane wrote...

Falcon509 wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
 Do you think the fact that combat cruisers will have adequate stocks of food and toilet rolls is going to make the blindest bit of difference?

Napolean stated quite accurately: "An army marches on it's stomach." Nobody will fight if they're starving.

Nobody will fight if they indoctrinated, either. I'm sure that the reason the Alliance had such a hard time with sovereign was nowt to do with firepower and everything to do with food.

I'm not really sure if you're just being facetious or whether you're following some line of argument, here, but if it's the latter, make your point.

It's a smaller point but still a valid one nonetheless. Discounting the importance of adequate ammenities has signed the death sentence on countless armies. A weak and starving army cannot fight. Then all the ships and missiles in the galaxy would be completely useless. Successful armies secure their supplies before fighting a war because of this.

Also, as mundane as it might seem, toilet paper would be important too. Practicing proper hygeine is important to make sure that military personnel don't die from disease or are weakened by it.

Modifié par Falcon509, 05 août 2010 - 09:30 .

[FrancisKitt]

First time I saved the port, but only because of the confusing way that mission makes you choose what to save.

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

You know thousands of colonists will die right now if you blow up the city.

However, if you save the spaceport you have no way of knowing how many lives it may save in the future, or if it will save any lives at all.

You're trading human lives for a maybe. That's just not something I will do.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

Yes and no.

Obviously both renegade Shepard and paragon Shepard are icons. You get the job done no matter your methodology, so I don't think doing something Torfan-like again is going to damage things overmuch. You're still just the guy who gets things done.

That said, a reputation is a very valuable tool, and one you should take care to use wisely.

However I do not believe that you should be willing to do something that is inherently wrong in all situations - something that costs human lives, for instance - to preserve that reputation. There's a line.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 05 août 2010 - 11:05 .

[Nightwriter]

Falcon509 wrote...

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. 

This is an excellent real life explanation of strategy.

However, in the game we are given no real awareness of the planet's strategic value, what it does, how important it could become, etc.

You're essentially killing thousands because it might become a useful outpost.

I wish the developers had applied your level of attention into the decision, but I somehow doubt that they did. 

[PWENER]

Why would anyone save the spaceport? and my Shepard is renegade.

[AresXX7]

there are certainly some valid viewpoints on both sides of this topic

I, for one, am still curious about the "Alliance interests" connection the spaceport has, wheter it is military or not

either way, you gotta love the vagueness aspect Bioware likes to throw at us

[GnusmasTHX]

Save the city, obviously.



It's pretty ridiculous how they can't replace a spaceport in the first place.

[Spartas Husky]

One spaceport wont mean defeat, one less one more it wont matter.



And the Alliance, cerberus, council, are all on my bad side, so fudge the alliance economical assets.

[hiTeknology]

 I swear

I just get these joke ideas in my head and - and I must do them![/quote]


i rofld

[Falcon509]

I guess I just overthink things. Thinking on a larger scale it makes more sense to protect the infrastructure of a settlement that's millions of miles from any other human colonies because I doubt that it's as simple as plopping down another spaceport. It'll be interesting to see what the impact is.



Also, I don't believe that anyone is so naive to assume that the simple existence of a colony would deter an enemy. Just another example of how most think in black or white, yes or no, ones and zeros.

[Perturabo100]

Falcon509 wrote...

I guess I just overthink things. Thinking on a larger scale it makes more sense to protect the infrastructure of a settlement that's millions of miles from any other human colonies because I doubt that it's as simple as plopping down another spaceport. It'll be interesting to see what the impact is.

Also, I don't believe that anyone is so naive to assume that the simple existence of a colony would deter an enemy. Just another example of how most think in black or white, yes or no, ones and zeros.

Ha, no you dont "overthink" things. you simply think with the big picture in mind..most people don't..thats why good leaders are rare these days..(imo)

I saved the Spaceport, I doub't its going to have any effect on Mass effect 3, but a couple thousand people (in a galaxy full of them) vs. a seemingly expensive and rare spaceport that takes a long time to build, and is needed for the colony to even operate, and possibly protects a portion of Alliance space is a easy choice in my view..now if this colony has a couple Million people and was Very important to the alliance/citadel. this would be a different story, a much harder choice.(again imo)

But hey marines are only worth 50 minerals,Starports are worth alot more.

[hamtyl07]

i saved the city

[thq95]

They should have given you better info on the spaceport to make it a tougher decision, it would have made a difference if the spaceport somehow helped protect other human lives.

[Whatever42]

The context I read into it (correctly or not) was that if you saved the spaceport then the colony could rebuild. But if you saved the colony then it would be disbanded because it was missing the necessary infrastructure.



So Paragon was saving lives. Renegade was advancing human colony interests in the traverse.

[MajesticJazz]

Kid_SixXx wrote...

Easier to rebuild a spaceport or relocate it somewhere else than it is to replace a city.

Not a very difficult decision.

See, this is why I do not like how Bioware is doing the whole Paragon vs Renegade choices. They are basically making Paragon = Lightside and Renegade = Darkside. There really is no suspense in your decisions as no matter what, the Paragon choice will always lead to a better and vibrant future while the Renegade choice is always bad for the shorterm and longterm. Bioware's Paragon and Renegade system is so unbalanced and really favors Paragon when it comes to longterm positive outcomes. I would have wished that there be more "surprises" when it comes to our decisions and less linear.

I'll use this particular N7 mission as an example. I bet, knowing BIoware, that in ME3 we'll get an email saying how the Colonay is now vibrant and bigger than ever because we saved the City in ME2. Very linear but wouldn't it be more suspensful if we knew that there could be a bad reaction to this? Say we save the city but because of no Alliance base in the area, even though we saved the City in ME2, the city in ME3 is doing really bad with numerous slaver attacks and pirate raids because there is no Alliance in the area to protect them.

So I guess what I'm really trying to say is, there should have been more Paragon decisions that might seem good in the shorterm, but actually was a bad choice in the long run and vice versa with Renegade as some choices might seem cruel in the short term but in the longterm it was actually the best choice. The way the system is now is that Paragon = Good in the Short and Longterm while Renegade = Cruel in the Short and Longterm.

[JaegerBane]

Falcon509 wrote...
There's a small amount of uninhabited, livable planets in the Mass Effect universe and by leaving such a significant investment to fail and die would be extremely risky for the Alliance. We aren't talking about just one colony after all... It's the whole planet. A complete planet of water, minerals, fuels, soil, etc... Let's not forget that it isn't only the Reapers that are a threat, it's other unfriendly races that are. Once the Reapers are taken care of, the Alliance would still need to deal with the batarians who largely view humanity as a blight on the galaxy and letting such vast resources fall into their hands would be reprehensible... Even downright irresponsible.

Falcon, let me be clear here - I'm not saying that the points you've put forward are wrong.

I'm pointing out that you don't seem to comprehend the cost of what you're saying. I'm sure that there are plenty of ways ensuring the future of the colony could contribute to humanity's survival. The problem is, they are all indirect, and every reason there is has to be worth the lives of thousands.

Thus, there is significant pressure on the decision to let the missiles fall on the city. It isn't good enough to speculate in vacuum about what uses the colony will have, conveniently avoiding the issue of the deaths of thousands. Whatever you do with the colony *has* to have a very specific benefit for the decision to be a repectable one. Setting up the vague banner of 'it all comes down to strategy' is essentially gambling the lives of city on an off-chance - which, in the real world, is a symptom of ineptitude when the benefit requires a paragraph of speculation just to explain..

It's a smaller point but still a valid one nonetheless. Discounting the importance of adequate ammenities has signed the death sentence on countless armies. A weak and starving army cannot fight. Then all the ships and missiles in the galaxy would be completely useless. Successful armies secure their supplies before fighting a war because of this.

Also, as mundane as it might seem, toilet paper would be important too. Practicing proper hygeine is important to make sure that military personnel don't die from disease or are weakened by it.

Falcon, I don't think you're actually comprehending what the Reaper War will actually be like if fought conventionally. If it helps, just look at the cutscenes in ME1. This is not going to be a Napoleonic battle of attrition where two sides jockey for position with supply lines and logistics winning the day.

Fighting using queensbury rules against the Reapers will result in a brutal, one-sided massacre on the side of the galactic races. Food and supplies only actually matter when your forces can actually fight on the level of the enemy. If the war against the Reapers is to be won, it's not going to be determined by who has the most guns and bullets - and hence, talking about supply lines and toilet rolls just illustrates how little you understand what this enemy actually represents.

And by extension, shows that you aren't truly understanding the sacrifice you're calling for on franklin.

[thq95]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Kid_SixXx wrote...

Easier to rebuild a spaceport or relocate it somewhere else than it is to replace a city.

Not a very difficult decision.

See, this is why I do not like how Bioware is doing the whole Paragon vs Renegade choices. They are basically making Paragon = Lightside and Renegade = Darkside. There really is no suspense in your decisions as no matter what, the Paragon choice will always lead to a better and vibrant future while the Renegade choice is always bad for the shorterm and longterm. Bioware's Paragon and Renegade system is so unbalanced and really favors Paragon when it comes to longterm positive outcomes. I would have wished that there be more "surprises" when it comes to our decisions and less linear.

I'll use this particular N7 mission as an example. I bet, knowing BIoware, that in ME3 we'll get an email saying how the Colonay is now vibrant and bigger than ever because we saved the City in ME2. Very linear but wouldn't it be more suspensful if we knew that there could be a bad reaction to this? Say we save the city but because of no Alliance base in the area, even though we saved the City in ME2, the city in ME3 is doing really bad with numerous slaver attacks and pirate raids because there is no Alliance in the area to protect them.

So I guess what I'm really trying to say is, there should have been more Paragon decisions that might seem good in the shorterm, but actually was a bad choice in the long run and vice versa with Renegade as some choices might seem cruel in the short term but in the longterm it was actually the best choice. The way the system is now is that Paragon = Good in the Short and Longterm while Renegade = Cruel in the Short and Longterm.

Yeah, I agree, they made the renegade options in ME2 more like a happy go lucky murder killer type and thats not what it was in ME1.  In ME1 it was get the job done at all costs the fastest and most efficient way and not risk the mission or risk getting your squad killed.