231 réponses à ce sujet

[krimesh]

To summarize: at the moment there are to kinds of opinions in here;

first kind is "weeeeh, hurting a lot of people is eviiiil ;..; and against the lawww. So Cerberus is eeeviiiil!!!"

second kind is "I feel like EVILGUY so I am pro Cerberus and while I can't be evilguy in RL, in ME I'm actually allowed to be, because the evilguys will safe the galaxy and all those ethics whiners will all die. me is big evilguy, and I am superior, HRUN."

Now, somewhere else I read, that this is a discussion between emotional people and intelligent people. Implying that emotional people blow up the collector base, and intelligent people keep it. I would like to see that refuted.
Up until now however, while the "second kind" failed to show its intelligence (failed to show, not does not have, okay?) the "first kind" have mostly used emotional arguments like "not good to kill people" and "against the law". Thing is, these don't hold. Watch this:

Assume it is unethical to sacrifice people to gain an advantage against the reapers. However humanities existence is at risk. So if you do not, there might be no humanity afterwards.
If you choose to be *evil* and use people as test-tubes to save the galaxy, you increase the chance of humanities continued existence and can always go back to being ethical afterwards. Is continued existence not better than death, as a consequence of following ethics? Isn't ethics broken when it stops you from surviving? You may say "look for other ways to win", but I say "the reapers are so powerful, we will need every bit anyway, if we want to have a chance." So being ethical makes ones extinction more likely. So by not sacrificing a few people you might inadvertently sacrifice all of them.

Ethics doesn't work that well as an argument AGIANST Cerberus, I feel. Neither does the law: when laws were made, no one had a reaper invasion in mind. Whenever people find themselves in a tough spot they throw ethics and laws over board for this very reason - incapable of finding true reasons to be a good person.

So how about you people try real arguments instead of emotional ones? About time to bring down "blowing up collector base - *facepalm* stupid emotional decision", don't you think?

Modifié par krimesh, 22 août 2010 - 08:57 .

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

krimesh wrote...

To summarize: at the moment there are to kinds of opinions in here;

first kind is "weeeeh, hurting a lot of people is eviiiil ;..; and against the lawww. So Cerberus is eeeviiiil!!!"

second kind is "I feel like EVILGUY so I am pro Cerberus and while I can't be evilguy in RL, in ME I'm actually allowed to be, because the evilguys will safe the galaxy and all those ethics whiners will all die. me is big evilguy, and I am superior, HRUN."

Now, somewhere else I read, that this is a discussion between emotional people and intelligent people. Implying that emotional people blow up the collector base, and intelligent people keep it. I would like to see that refuted.
Up until now however, while the "second kind" failed to show its intelligence (failed to show, not does not have, okay?) the "first kind" have mostly used emotional arguments like "not good to kill people" and "against the law". Thing is, these don't hold. Watch this:

Assume it is unethical to sacrifice people to gain an advantage against the reapers. However humanities existence is at risk. So if you do not, there might be no humanity afterwards.
If you choose to be *evil* and use people as test-tubes to save the galaxy, you increase the chance of humanities continued existence and can always go back to being ethical afterwards. Is continued existence not better than death, as a consequence of following ethics? Isn't ethics broken when it stops you from surviving? You may say "look for other ways to win", but I say "the reapers are so powerful, we will need every bit anyway, if we want to have a chance." So being ethical makes ones extinction more likely. So by not sacrificing a few people you might inadvertently sacrifice all of them.

Ethics doesn't work that well as an argument AGIANST Cerberus, I feel. Neither does the law: when laws were made, no one had a reaper invasion in mind. Whenever people find themselves in a tough spot they throw ethics and laws over board for this very reason - incapable of finding true reasons to be a good person.

So how about you people try real arguments instead of emotional ones? About time to bring down "blowing up collector base - *facepalm* stupid emotional decision", don't you think?

Ethics have nothing to do with feel-good emotions; aside from the fact that you are completely ignoring the construct of a society based upon social contract and what rights government is obligated to protect by arguing there is no logic when debating the merits of ethics, I will continue.

It is law that allows for people to live beyond their otherwise nasty, short, and Brutish lives (Hobbes). Laws create a society which in turn can protect a large number of people. As you know, this works in myriad of ways in multiple formats; dictatorships, democracies, republics, theocracies, kakistocracies, etc.

Consider the Mass Effect universe: all of species, save for a few due to past events, are represented by consociational government that serves to stop inner strife amongst species. Everyone has specifically numerated rights to protect them from the consequences that a lack of protection offers: despotism and slavery--look no further than the terminus systems. It wasn't Cerberus that stopped the first contact war and gave humans representation, it was the Council.

Handing over the base to Cerberus will remove any possible chance of collaboration between the species against the reaper threat; what is the expectation here, that everyone will unite under the Cerberus banner (considering them being a terrorist organization, their agenda, and past history)? Besides this, you're arguing that all of the basic tenets used to build society (rights) have to be thrown away in order to save it. You can't save humanity by losing it.

In summary:

1) Keeping the collector base presents a paradigm where most (if not all) species will refuse to work with humanity given the Cerberus connection.

2) Ethics are not all about emotion.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 22 août 2010 - 09:28 .

[krimesh]

Just to make that clear, I think giving the collector base to cerberus is extremely unwise.

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Handing over the base to Cerberus will remove any possible chance of collaboration between the species against the reaper threat; what is the expectation here, that everyone will unite under the Cerberus banner (considering them being a terrorist organization, their agenda, and past history)? Besides this, you're arguing that all of the basic tenets used to build society (rights) have to be thrown away in order to save it. You can't save humanity by losing it.

Thats two great points in there, and I agree with them a 100%.

But you still did not convince me that you can use law and ethics to argue against cerberus. Laws are like invisible walls; they only exist in peoples heads - they do not enforce themselves or something, like a law of nature , say. This is why we have people with guns to enforce them. When the situation changes, laws might have to change too.
Laws are sort of like the MEANS to make people follow reason without having to make the hole logical argument every time. The logic behind them remains primary. So if the situation changes (like a reaper threat appearing) existing laws need to be proven valid again, by checking their logical foundation.

Obviously many people do not realize this, and that is why laws get ignored when people get into trouble, even though they might still be valid. This makes it even more important to argue using the logic behind laws and ethics, instead of simply stating that laws and ethics are still valid and cannot be altered for some divine reason.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

krimesh wrote...

Just to make that clear, I think giving the collector base to cerberus is extremely unwise.

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Handing over the base to Cerberus will remove any possible chance of collaboration between the species against the reaper threat; what is the expectation here, that everyone will unite under the Cerberus banner (considering them being a terrorist organization, their agenda, and past history)? Besides this, you're arguing that all of the basic tenets used to build society (rights) have to be thrown away in order to save it. You can't save humanity by losing it.

Thats two great points in there, and I agree with them a 100%.

But you still did not convince me that you can use law and ethics to argue against cerberus. Laws are like invisible walls; they only exist in peoples heads - they do not enforce themselves or something, like a law of nature , say. This is why we have people with guns to enforce them. When the situation changes, laws might have to change too.
Laws are sort of like the MEANS to make people follow reason without having to make the hole logical argument every time. The logic behind them remains primary. So if the situation changes (like a reaper threat appearing) existing laws need to be proven valid again, by checking their logical foundation.

Obviously many people do not realize this, and that is why laws get ignored when people get into trouble, even though they might still be valid. This makes it even more important to argue using the logic behind laws and ethics, instead of simply stating that laws and ethics are still valid and cannot be altered for some divine reason.

I realize that you are talking about exigent circumstances; I do support them in many cases, however handing the base to Cerberus in my mind has more negative effects than positives, ethics of using it aside.

[Dean_the_Young]

Why would the galaxy have to unite behind the Cerberus banner? Since when has Cerberus stated or implied that as a goal for fighting the Reapers, as opposed to working on cracking the tech of the Collector Base and using it to strengthen the Alliance?



An argument that the galaxy as a whole can't unite if you give the base to Cerberus presumes (a) that the decision to give the base is even known (Cerberus has every incentive to keep it a secret, and the Council can hardly accuse you of giving galaxy-changing Reaper technology to anyone so long as they don't believe in Reapers), that Cerberus is intended to reverse all prior history and supplant the Alliance lead publicly from the front rather than act from the shadows (as they did against the Collectors), and that the knowledge that victory will mean one species gains dominance (rather than the great number of three) will make every species prefer death and extinction to survival in a galaxy where only three species see a negative change of position.

[Asheer_Khan]

Maybe it's time for humanity and Citadel species to really start thinking on thier own?



I read (because i needed that info for my little fanfiction ME/Star Trek crossover) codex entry regarding kinetic barriers...



Imagine my surprise when i learn that kinetic barriers are useless when comes to energy based weapons...



That's why DA despite her size suffer so heavy damages because Geth uses energy based weapons or Sovieregin sliced Alliance ships like knife sliced butter or that's why non upgraded Normandy was able to destroy Collector cruiser in close combat..



Seriously... what we need to kick Haby's rear are shields able to withstand those energy rays and energy based torpedoes (YES ala Photon torpedoes)... but i known that this would be too huge shift in certain universe...



Sorry for this off topic entry but if i learn something from this forum than any attempt to reasoning with pro cerberus faction is pointless because no matter what counter arguments will be brought they will always "dismissed that claims"...



But i want to ask them one simple question.



"What gives humanity even a spark of right to demand be a "top dog" over much older than humanity Galactic Civilizations?"

[Count Viceroy]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Seriously... what we need to kick Haby's rear are shields able to withstand those energy rays and energy based torpedoes (YES ala Photon torpedoes)... but i known that this would be too huge shift in certain universe...

They are not energy weapons, you should have read the thanix cannon codex entry. It's super heated metal.

Contrary to popular belief, Sovereign's main gun was not a directed
energy weapon. Rather, its massive element zero core powered an
electromagnetic field suspending a liquid iron-uranium-tungsten alloy
that shaped into armor-piercing projectiles when fired. The jet of
molten metal, accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light, destroys
targets by impact force and irresistible heat.
Only 11 months after the battle, the turians produced the Thanix,
their own miniaturized version of Sovereign's gun. The Thanix can fire
reliably every five seconds, rivaling a cruiser's firepower but
mountable on a fighter or frigate.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 22 août 2010 - 12:36 .

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why would the galaxy have to unite behind the Cerberus banner? Since when has Cerberus stated or implied that as a goal for fighting the Reapers, as opposed to working on cracking the tech of the Collector Base and using it to strengthen the Alliance?

Cerberus is a terrorist organization that split off from the Alliance. Severe theorycraft without that kind of information not being leaked or the Alliance making deals with Cerberus.

An argument that the galaxy as a whole can't unite if you give
the base to Cerberus presumes (a) that the decision to give the base is
even known (Cerberus has every incentive to keep it a secret, and the
Council can hardly accuse you of giving galaxy-changing Reaper
technology to anyone so long as they don't believe in Reapers)

No. It is implying that the information will be made known by some sort of information deal. I don't find that to be too far out of the question.

that
Cerberus is intended to reverse all prior history and supplant the
Alliance lead publicly from the front rather than act from the shadows
(as they did against the Collectors)

Uniting under Cerberus was more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. I don't imagine the Illusive Man to be having manning the deck of a cruiser in an assault. My mistake for lack of clarification.

and that the knowledge that
victory will mean one species gains dominance (rather than the great
number of three) will make every species prefer death and extinction to
survival in a galaxy where only three species see a negative change of
position.

Assuming that:

1) Reaper indoctrination has no effect on teams working on the ship
2) There will be salvageable technology
2) No sort of information leak will occur. Kahoku located a Cerberus base by means of the Shadowbroker.

This is aside from any kind of ethical problem as well.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 22 août 2010 - 12:36 .

[krimesh]

I should do some reading on this in the Codex some time, but I am under the impression right now that armor is meant to protect against energy ray kind of weapons.

[Asheer_Khan]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Seriously... what we need to kick Haby's rear are shields able to withstand those energy rays and energy based torpedoes (YES ala Photon torpedoes)... but i known that this would be too huge shift in certain universe...

They are not energy weapons, you should have read the thanix cannon codex entry. It's super heated metal.

Contrary to popular belief, Sovereign's main gun was not a directed
energy weapon. Rather, its massive element zero core powered an
electromagnetic field suspending a liquid iron-uranium-tungsten alloy
that shaped into armor-piercing projectiles when fired. The jet of
molten metal, accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light, destroys
targets by impact force and irresistible heat.
Only 11 months after the battle, the turians produced the Thanix,
their own miniaturized version of Sovereign's gun. The Thanix can fire
reliably every five seconds, rivaling a cruiser's firepower but
mountable on a fighter or frigate.

Hmmm... thank you for that info (i really missed that small fact^_^)  however that's only prove fact that we still deal with phisical "ammo" based weapons than energy based weapons (despite thier deceptive look) .

So in matter of fact even simple phasers (or whatever he would be called in ME Universe) mounted on ship like Normandy 2 could cause very heavy damages on Reaper ship if not destroy him completely when phaser would hit EZO core because kinetic barriers can't stop energy weapons.

[Count Viceroy]

There's energy weapons in use in the me universe. The GARDIAN anti fighter close range defense systems are laser powered.

http://masseffect.wi...om/wiki/GARDIAN


So technically they could be used, but they require getting close in the first place, and there's no telling if they could do any sort of damage to reaper hulls at all.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 22 août 2010 - 12:56 .

[Asheer_Khan]

krimesh wrote...

I should do some reading on this in the Codex some time, but I am under the impression right now that armor is meant to protect against energy ray kind of weapons.

Well, armor itself did poses ranged tolerance for energy exposition (that's why in Star Trek for example even if shields fail it still takes some time to destroy non shielded ship), but everything depend how long certain part of armor will be under such exposion because energy ray produced heat.

Problem in ME Universe is that energy based weapons are quite rare so most ship armors are concepted to withstand projectiles impact (almost similar to WW II ships) so it's possible that in confrontation with ship armed with phasers, lazers or whatever you will call such weapon armor which could hold couple hits from Dreadnougth class would give up after one or two direct hits of such rays... but on the other hand this could be speculation as well since i need to dig up some info about ME ship armor composition.

[Count Viceroy]

About the batarian sun reflecting array. Imagine aiming that one on a ship.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 22 août 2010 - 01:03 .

[Solaris Paradox]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Well, armor itself did poses ranged tolerance for energy exposition (that's why in Star Trek for example even if shields fail it still takes some time to destroy non shielded ship), but everything depend how long certain part of armor will be under such exposion because energy ray produced heat.

Problem in ME Universe is that energy based weapons are quite rare so most ship armors are concepted to withstand projectiles impact (almost similar to WW II ships) so it's possible that in confrontation with ship armed with phasers, lazers or whatever you will call such weapon armor which could hold couple hits from Dreadnougth class would give up after one or two direct hits of such rays... but on the other hand this could be speculation as well since i need to dig up some info about ME ship armor composition.

Given that armor in the ME universe generally puts a lot more focus on kinetic barriers than actual armor--and that this also appears true of ships--I wouldn't be surprised if you're right on the money, there. The Normandy's complete helplessness at the hands of the Collector Ship at the start of ME2 and the simple remedy of upgrading the Normandy SR-2's armor plating to protect it from that same weapon would appear to support your position.

[Asheer_Khan]

Count Viceroy wrote...

There's energy weapons in use in the me universe. The GARDIAN anti fighter close range defense systems are laser powered.

http://masseffect.wi...om/wiki/GARDIAN


So technically they could be used, but they require getting close in the first place, and there's no telling if they could do any sort of damage to reaper hulls at all.

Yes, problem with Gardian system is that he was not concept as offensive battle system but as even name pointed to protect ship from incoming hostiles (however flight in that derilict ships field proved that even this system have huge flaw) so he is more or less but low powered weapon system and i too doubt that he would caused any damages to reaper ship BUT if you will created High powered version of this system where rays could have similar to Tannix (if not higher) energy strength... then i wouldn't be so confident anymore in Reapers armor durability... since there will be nothing between firing ship and reaper what could weaker such ray.

[Count Viceroy]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Count Viceroy wrote...

There's energy weapons in use in the me universe. The GARDIAN anti fighter close range defense systems are laser powered.

http://masseffect.wi...om/wiki/GARDIAN


So technically they could be used, but they require getting close in the first place, and there's no telling if they could do any sort of damage to reaper hulls at all.

Yes, problem with Gardian system is that he was not concept as offensive battle system but as even name pointed to protect ship from incoming hostiles (however flight in that derilict ships field proved that even this system have huge flaw) so he is more or less but low powered weapon system and i too doubt that he would caused any damages to reaper ship BUT if you will created High powered version of this system where rays could have similar to Tannix (if not higher) energy strength... then i wouldn't be so confident anymore in Reapers armor durability... since there will be nothing between firing ship and reaper what could weaker such ray.

Honestly, energy weapons seems to be a solid way to gain an edge against reapers, since we know they do use kinetic barriers. Just bypass them entierly. 

Could start mass producing those Batarian orbital mirrors and deploy them as turrets around vital systems. assuming they are powerful enough and placed properly they'd have unlimited ammo and given enough time, who knows what it could do to a reaper.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 22 août 2010 - 01:13 .

[Asheer_Khan]

Count Viceroy wrote...

About the batarian sun reflecting array. Imagine aiming that one on a ship.

Hmmm... that could be really interesting indeed.

[krimesh]

Sorry about the offtopic, thats my last..

@Asheer_Khan: Well, think of the suicide mission, those eye-things guarding collector base. They seemed to have a lot of fun LASERing their way through Normandy's armor. I am not quite certain what you are trying to do, though.

In any case lets get back on topic

[Asheer_Khan]

krimesh wrote...

Sorry about the offtopic, thats my last..
@Asheer_Khan: Well, think of the suicide mission, those eye-things guarding collector base. They seemed to have a lot of fun LASERing their way through Normandy's armor. I am not quite certain what you are trying to do, though.
In any case lets get back on topic

That's whole point of this little debate.
ME ships are completely unprotected agaist laser weapons because kinetic barriers can't stop them and that's why Occulus could so easy entering Normandy but if Normandy would poses similar to Star Trek Ships shield composition such easy entering would be impossible because first Occulus would need to bring such shield down and that's would of course alarmed crew early in off to counter such attempt.

Hmmm... slowly i starting to think that ME  Ships are more or less "giants on the clay legs"... but you are right, let's back to topic^_^.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Why would the galaxy have to unite behind the Cerberus banner? Since when has Cerberus stated or implied that as a goal for fighting the Reapers, as opposed to working on cracking the tech of the Collector Base and using it to strengthen the Alliance?

Cerberus is a terrorist organization that split off from the Alliance. Severe theorycraft without that kind of information not being leaked or the Alliance making deals with Cerberus.

Old news not in dispute, but what does this have to do with why the galaxy will be asked to rally behind Cerberus?

Cerberus doesn't need to be the leader against the Reapers to meet it's objectives: distributing Reaper tech to build up the Alliance's post-war dominance. It doesn't even have to be a public player in the Reaper war. If the reason the galaxy won't unite is because it is being asked to unite behind Cerberus, the simplest thing for Cerberus to do to preserve all of its interests is not be the banner.

Cerberus was never a public face of humanity anyway. Leave that to the Alliance, or the Council.

An argument that the galaxy as a whole can't unite if you give
the base to Cerberus presumes (a) that the decision to give the base is
even known (Cerberus has every incentive to keep it a secret, and the
Council can hardly accuse you of giving galaxy-changing Reaper
technology to anyone so long as they don't believe in Reapers)

No. It is implying that the information will be made known by some sort of information deal. I don't find that to be too far out of the question.

What information? That Cerberus captured a base of a species in a colony-abduction campaign against humanity (that the Council did not recognize) and in doing so got the technology of a hyper-advanced race of genocidal sentient starships (which the Council also does not recognize)?

There is a marked difference between the first (the Collectors and their leading-edge technology) and the second (the generations tech leap), neither of which precludes the Council working with, well, a member of the Council (the Alliance).

and that the knowledge that
victory will mean one species gains dominance (rather than the great
number of three) will make every species prefer death and extinction to
survival in a galaxy where only three species see a negative change of
position.

Assuming that:

1) Reaper indoctrination has no effect on teams working on the ship

Largely irrelevant, since the indoctrination risk is minor, circumventable, and the costs born by Cerberus. 

2) There will be salvageable technology

A given statement by the plot and demonstrated by prior gameplay such as all the tech scans on the Collector Ship

3) No sort of information leak will occur. Kahoku located a Cerberus base by means of the Shadowbroker.

An actual positive to the ability of the galaxy to defend itself (the more people who have the information, the better equiped the galaxy and the less disproportionately dominant Cerberus).

Mind you, there's the matter of the IFF to get around, since noing of the existence, even location, of the base isn't enough to get to it, but same point applies.

This is aside from any kind of ethical problem as well.

As a pragmaticist, my ethics find many of the arguments against the base to be short sighted, and arguments of the dangers of the Illusive Man versus the Reapers to be repugnant.

[Solaris Paradox]

My argument against maintaining the base is simply that I don't want something like that in the hands of a guy who openly wants to use it to secure human dominance in the galaxy "against the Reapers and beyond." I would have preserved the base if I had the option to pass it into the hands of the Alliance or, even better, the Council. Cerberus I simply do not trust. Defeating the Reapers is all well and good, but it's not a good idea to give a shotgun to someone who might turn around and splatter your brains 'cross the walls when the common enemy's out of the picture.

[Solaris Paradox]

krimesh wrote...

Sorry about the offtopic, thats my last..
@Asheer_Khan: Well, think of the suicide mission, those eye-things guarding collector base. They seemed to have a lot of fun LASERing their way through Normandy's armor. I am not quite certain what you are trying to do, though.
In any case lets get back on topic

Actually, didn't Grunt mention something about the cargo hold being a weak point?

I know that's still off-topic, but I thought it might be worth mentioning. The lasers didn't seem to have as easy a time breaking through anywhere else.

[Giggles_Manically]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

krimesh wrote...

Sorry about the offtopic, thats my last..
@Asheer_Khan: Well, think of the suicide mission, those eye-things guarding collector base. They seemed to have a lot of fun LASERing their way through Normandy's armor. I am not quite certain what you are trying to do, though.
In any case lets get back on topic

Actually, didn't Grunt mention something about the cargo hold being a weak point?

I know that's still off-topic, but I thought it might be worth mentioning. The lasers didn't seem to have as easy a time breaking through anywhere else.

I thought he mentioned that stuff shifting around would be bad in the hold.

[Dean_the_Young]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

My argument against maintaining the base is simply that I don't want something like that in the hands of a guy who openly wants to use it to secure human dominance in the galaxy "against the Reapers and beyond." I would have preserved the base if I had the option to pass it into the hands of the Alliance or, even better, the Council. Cerberus I simply do not trust. Defeating the Reapers is all well and good, but it's not a good idea to give a shotgun to someone who might turn around and splatter your brains 'cross the walls when the common enemy's out of the picture.

It is when the shotgun person isn't genocidal(Cerberus), the common enemy is (the Reapers), and the common enemy already stands a very, very good chance at winning because he has a shotgun and you don't.

Between a greater immediate looming disaster and a lesser potential disaster down the road, it is always better (some would say more moral) to choose the lesser disaster. Even though it's down the road, it is still the lesser of two evils.

[Count Viceroy]

Many people probably destroy it simply because its a game and they know they can still win the game without it. I'd really like to see Bioware slap people in the face with this, either total failure or something the size and importance of earth gets taken out.