2146 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

I'm not biased against folks who save the base. I am, however, pissed that my decision to destroy the base is laughed at for being silly, while attempts to counter keep-the-base arguments are just brushed off. Both decisions have equally valid merits as to why you would pick one or the other. Neither choice is strictly superior to the other choice.

[Inverness Moon]

DPSSOC wrote...

I thought occurred to me recently (Warning Minor Lair of the Shadow Broker Spoilers Ahead). Do those who destroy the base on the grounds it could be a Reaper trap also want to destroy the Shadow Broker vessel? It's essentially the same thing, despite all the effort it took to get to the main chamber Liara points out how comically insufficient the security is. So since it seems like the means to take over as Shadow Broker have been laid out on a silver platter it must obviously be a trap set up by the previous Shadow Broker.

Oh, that is interesting food for thought.

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'm not biased against folks who save the base. I am, however, pissed that my decision to destroy the base is laughed at for being silly, while attempts to counter keep-the-base arguments are just brushed off. Both decisions have equally valid merits as to why you would pick one or the other. Neither choice is strictly superior to the other choice.

Because it is silly to not take any advantage you can get in a war that you have a near zero chance of winning.

Many people who support destroying the base focus too much on the bad that COULD happen if you keep the base rather than on what WILL happen when the reapers get here. It's basically a shortsightedness revolving around TIM and Cerberus instead of preventing a cycle of extinction that has gone on for tens of millions of years.

Either that, or they're just metagaming and not making the decision from an in-character perspective.

Edit: Another way to illustrate my opinion on the matter is to say that what happens if you save the base represents a known unknown, while what happens if you destroy it represents an unknown unknown.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:35 .

[mosor]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I thought this thread was not a "Why base-destroyers are idiots" but a "Discussion of opinion between base-keepers and base destroyers." Because no, stating that destroying the base was obviously the silly choice is equally silly. There are possible negative consequences to keeping the base around, as much as there negative consequences to destroying it. It's not a matter of extremes. Arguing that one choice is obviously superior to the other is inherently fallacious.

The problem is people who destroy the base present arguments that are:

1. Flawed

2. Have plenty of information gaps they like to fill with whatever fantasy they like to create or make unfounded assumptions.

3 Present Cerberus as a greater evil than the reapers or believe human dominace is a greater evil than extinction

4. Feel cutting ties with Cerberus is more important than investingating the base,  that this will be the only opportunity to do it and believe that simply destroying the base will somehow win back the trust of the council.

The arguments they make are primarily emotional appeals or based on personal morality, while we counter it with cold disspasionate logic. Basing a decision on sound logic is always superior, but that's just my opinion.

Modifié par mosor, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:41 .

[Riggs]

on my very first playthrough i kept it intact because I thought it would give us a better chance against fending off the reapers even though I dont know how that base would help against a whole reaper fleet but I figured we needed all the advantages we can get.  Now I realize that keeping the base is wrong, we should use are own technology to fight the reapers even if that means we get slaughtered it would be a good fight. Watch the new clash of the titans movie if you dont get what im saying.

[mosor]

Riggs wrote...
Now I realize that keeping the base is wrong, we should use are own technology to fight the reapers even if that means we get slaughtered it would be a good fight. Watch the new clash of the titans movie if you dont get what im saying.

The problem with this is your weapons, your ship drives, and your kenetic barriers, your mass relays that you use to move the fleets are already based on reaper tech. You're basically using the crappier, inferior version they wanted you to have.

Modifié par mosor, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Cryo84]

Everyone who blew it up is a near sighted dolt.

It's not reaper tech, it's repurposed Prothean tech. It's as much reaper tech as your ship, gun, and mass relay. 
Why would the idea of a human dominated galaxy (A fantastic idea, if you ask me) be worse than unknown trillions of lives lost in this cycle of extinction and the next, ad infinium? 

Life may never get a chance like this ever again.

Modifié par Cryo84, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:51 .

[Thornquist]

RiouHotaru wrote...
 Both decisions have equally valid merits as to why you would pick one or the other. Neither choice is strictly superior to the other choice.

If that was the case, then we could close this thread and start talking about something else.
You obviously have reasons why destroying the base is a better solution than keeping it.
And I sure as hell have reasons why I think keeping it is better than destroying it.
Thereby, we discuss.

And in my opinion, the arguments for keeping the base in this thread is coming out to be the superior ones.

Note: Alltough I agree that name-calling and attack on persons have no place in this discussion.

Modifié par Thornquist, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:50 .

[Inverness Moon]

Riggs wrote...

on my very first playthrough i kept it intact because I thought it would give us a better chance against fending off the reapers even though I dont know how that base would help against a whole reaper fleet but I figured we needed all the advantages we can get.  Now I realize that keeping the base is wrong, we should use are own technology to fight the reapers even if that means we get slaughtered it would be a good fight. Watch the new clash of the titans movie if you dont get what im saying.

1. We have no idea when the reapers will arrive in the galaxy. Developing new technology from scratch would take a lot longer than raiding and researching the collector base. Considering that we need to destroy the reapers, and that the collector base can be used to build a reaper, it should be pretty clear what area your efforts should be focused on.

2. Even if it means getting slaughtered? Obviously you're not taking this seriously, I think we're done arguing. Hint hint, the rest of the galaxy probably does not agree with you, and it is all of them who will be affected by your decision.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:52 .

[Thornquist]

mosor wrote...

Riggs wrote...
Now I realize that keeping the base is wrong, we should use are own technology to fight the reapers even if that means we get slaughtered it would be a good fight. Watch the new clash of the titans movie if you dont get what im saying.

The problem with this is your weapons, your ship drives, and your kenetic barriers, your mass relays that you use to move the fleets are already based on reaper tech. You're basically using the crappier, inferior version they wanted you to have.

Ahh, sweet irony. How difficult to grasp thee on the internet. ^^

[mosor]

Thornquist wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
 Both decisions have equally valid merits as to why you would pick one or the other. Neither choice is strictly superior to the other choice.

If that was the case, then we could close this thread and start talking about something else.
You obviously have reasons why destroying the base is a better solution than keeping it.
And I sure as hell have reasons why I think keeping it is better than destroying it.
Thereby, we discuss.

And in my opinion, the arguments for keeping the base in this thread is coming out to be the superior ones.

Note: Alltough I agree that name-calling and attack on persons have no place in this discussion.

Here is my reason for destroying the base in one of my playthroughs. Metagaming be dammned, I know bioware will create a superior outcome, however ridiculous for my paragon choice because they don't like to punish paragons much, regardless of how naive the choice was.

[mosor]

Thornquist wrote...

mosor wrote...

Riggs wrote...
Now I realize that keeping the base is wrong, we should use are own technology to fight the reapers even if that means we get slaughtered it would be a good fight. Watch the new clash of the titans movie if you dont get what im saying.

The problem with this is your weapons, your ship drives, and your kenetic barriers, your mass relays that you use to move the fleets are already based on reaper tech. You're basically using the crappier, inferior version they wanted you to have.

Ahh, sweet irony. How difficult to grasp thee on the internet. ^^

Heh, If there was irony in that post, I might have caught it if that argument wasn't a consistent reason people presented for destroying the base,

[Thornquist]

mosor wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
 Both decisions have equally valid merits as to why you would pick one or the other. Neither choice is strictly superior to the other choice.

If that was the case, then we could close this thread and start talking about something else.
You obviously have reasons why destroying the base is a better solution than keeping it.
And I sure as hell have reasons why I think keeping it is better than destroying it.
Thereby, we discuss.

And in my opinion, the arguments for keeping the base in this thread is coming out to be the superior ones.

Note: Alltough I agree that name-calling and attack on persons have no place in this discussion.

Here is my reason for destroying the base in one of my playthroughs. Metagaming be dammned, I know bioware will create a superior outcome, however ridiculous for my paragon choice because they don't like to punish paragons much, regardless of how naive the choice was.

One of the few "destroy the base" arguments I can agree on

[GuardianAngel470]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'm not biased against folks who save the base. I am, however, pissed that my decision to destroy the base is laughed at for being silly, while attempts to counter keep-the-base arguments are just brushed off. Both decisions have equally valid merits as to why you would pick one or the other. Neither choice is strictly superior to the other choice.

Listen, if I were giving the base to anyone but cerberus, I would keep it in less than the blink of an eye.

But because I know how Cerberus operates, of which my quote from last night is proof of validity, not evidence for the initial decision, I destroy it. 

If I could hand the base to Anderson, I would know that he would take precautions, create contingency plans, means to reverse the problems. But the illusive man is impulsive.  

Tell me this. Why the hell didn't TIM implant Grayson with a device to instantly kill him if things went wrong? Because he was too focused on revenge and his impulsive drive to ignore the dangers with gusto.

Anderson wouldn't have made that mistake.

[GuardianAngel470]

The base is a hugely valuable resource, but to use an analogy from Mordin himself, giving it to TIM is like giving nuclear weapons to Cave men.

[Arijharn]

But to assume that Cerberus couldn't learn from past mistakes is baffling from the perspective that to be a credible 'threat' to the Citadel council it would have to be effective. They also correctly put my Shephard back together too (not sure about anyone else's, presumably you all have your fingers and toes though ).



My thought process is basically this: Saving galactic civilisation is well worth the cost of 1, 5, 100, 200 people imo, and if nothing else, saving galactic civilisation is well worth the cost of my soul. I have too, in good conscious, make that decision because I can't depend on everyone else just accepting my morality. Many people may be atheists, many people may not even have my personal beliefs. It's the epitome of selfishness to make that decision on the behalf of all Creation if the alternative is only going to cost me. The dead are already dead, I can not change the past, but I can change the future.

[mosor]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Tell me this. Why the hell didn't TIM implant Grayson with a device to instantly kill him if things went wrong? Because he was too focused on revenge and his impulsive drive to ignore the dangers with gusto.

1. An inplanted kill switch could have affected data
2. No way to know  if reaper device would have deactivated it, since it heals everything else in his body.
3. He had better insurance than a kill switch. He had Lai Leng ready to strike. If the turians didn't strike and allowed grayson to become more powerful over time, that and the cell would have been more than enough.

Modifié par mosor, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:42 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Somebody1003 wrote...

Well he did have Kai Leng there specifically to kill Grayson when the time came. He never expected the turians to show up like that.

Yes, because that is a great contingency plan. Use an ex-N7 operative to kill a completely possessed Reaper avatar.

I needed the best weapons and training from both N7 and Citadel military as well as an ex lieutenant from the turian military and a quarian with a shotgun to take out an equal foe.

External means of killing is inefficient. Anderson would have made sure to implant him with a device to destroy his brain that could be activated from afar. In the event of an escape, which is likely given the enemy. To honestly expect that one man can hope to defeat a reaper avatar in close combat and stake an entire operation and the lives of every man woman and child on it is reckless and impulsive.

Proper contingency plans have redundacy. If plan A fails, there are several more plans to run through. TIM didn't take any real precautions, he just charged ahead and as a result an external event ruined their only plan.

Again, reckless and impulsive. It would be like trusting a child with a gun.

[GuardianAngel470]

Shandepared wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

The base is a hugely valuable resource, but to use an analogy from Mordin himself, giving it to TIM is like giving nuclear weapons to Cave men.

Humanity did fine when they found the Prothean cache and they'll do fine this time.

That is different. There were governents to slow the process of adaption down. Beuracracy that gave the scientists time to formulate a way forward.  In the Codex it said that there was a period of time where the governments of the earth argued over who had rights to the site.  It isn't the same, especially since it was prothean tech and not reaper tech. There was no tech that created a quantum entanglement-based link to machine species bent on the destruction of the galaxy's civilizations. We were ignorant of the risks, TIM wasn't.

[GuardianAngel470]

And as for implants effecting data, tough. Science is rarely accurate to the letter. Many experiments have to be compensated to afford for margin of error. If you can't conduct an experiment with a reasonable protection against catastrophic failure, don't do it.



Look what happened at Black Mesa.

[Dean_the_Young]

Inverness Moon wrote...

I'm quite done arguing with Elite Midget, he/she is unable to form a coherent argument and is unable to understand anyone else's argument.

The continued unfounded accusations that some people (including me) think TIM can do no wrong is evidence of this.

Look, I don't like the (kid? teen? Idealistic adult?)'s logic, but this is entirely the wrong attitude to take, let alone express. It doesn't matter how rational, reasonable, or logical you think you are, if you resort to calling someone stupid it ruins everything else.

Half of all persuasion is tact, and the other half is connecting their logic to accepted standards. If you want to take issue with a hyperbolic strawman, take issue with a hyperbolic strawman. If you take issue with a bunch of  assertions based on contradicting or openly inaccurate claims, do that.

But don't resort to a 'you're just stupid' dismissal, even if you think it. It doesn't help you convince the other person, and more importantly it doesn't help you convince anyone else. Which should be the point of any civilized argument in the first place. Whenever someone does that, they come off as a pretentious condescending ass, and most people will resist any argument or position from such a person just on general principal, no matter how right you are. (If you are right.) I doubt half the people who began your post read through to your last sentence, and why would they?

It doesn't help you. It doesn't help your argument. It doesn't help this thread. So please, don't.