2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. Gogeta34]

We have proof that TIM did not plan to mass exterminate populations to build a Reaper. As was expected,he wanted to test Reaper technology and try to develop countermeasures. Needed test subjects (only a small group) and handpicked them. Because of his first choice, we know he's going against traitors and people of that nature.



May have been better to do that against death sentence inmates, but it's hard to deny that knowing the Reapers are capable of such total control is a valuable revelation and a danger that HAS to be addressed before the Reapers arrive or their technology could DESTROY any united effort.



If the Reapers "Grayson'd" the Rachni or infiltrated the races, they could get sentient life attacking eachother or severely crippling any effort to stay united while they're yet still ~"darkening the sky of every world with their numbers"... destroying and harvesting.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Smud, you haven't actually read Ascension, have you?

[smudboy]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Smud, you haven't actually read Ascension, have you?

Nope.  I wanted to keep my opinions on ME2 unbiased.  I might read it later, however.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

Assumptions, assumptions. It comes down to what I said at the start. To make destroying the base a viable decision, you need to assume that there's nothing indispensible (left) in it. But you can't afford that assumption because we're grasping at straws for survival. We can't afford to miss *anything* because we have absolutely no idea what we might need. My argument stands.

And my argument stands as well.  Your argument rides on the assumption that there is any meaningful technology that can be utilizied/reverse-engineered/etc, in time before the Reapers arrive.  I love how you claim your argument is somehow any more meaningful than mine, when yours is based on a similar assumption.  Also, destroying the base being viable is also dependent on whether or not you think you can trust Cerberus with it as well.

Wrong on both counts:

(1) My argument does not depend on there actually being anything indispensible on the base. My argument depends on the chance of there being such a thing. If there is any chance that there is such a thing, we cannot afford to destroy the base.

(2) No,  trusting Cerberus or not has absolutely no impact on the decision. Because it doesn't matter what Cerberus does with it, it's always the lesser evil compared with letting the Reapers win. Since the chances of both are unknown, the quality of the worst possible outcome decides the matter.

PLUS

If the C-Base is spared, it still can be destroyed at some point in the future, if it's continued existence proves to be undesirable. It's not irreversible, it's not "the only chance". If this decision proves wrong, it can be corrected.

If the C-Base is destroyed, it can't be un-destroyed. It's irreversible. If this decision proves wrong, it can't be corrected.

[Fiery Phoenix]

smudboy wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Smud, you haven't actually read Ascension, have you?

Nope.  I wanted to keep my opinions on ME2 unbiased.  I might read it later, however.

I understand. I just wanted to point out that those three people Phaedon was talking about are Hendel Mitra, Khalee Sanders and Gillian Grayson (a biotic kid). They went to the Migrant Fleet with the help of a quarian because they thought it was the safest place for them to hide from Cerberus for the moment. Cerberus, however, still managed to get to the Migrant Fleet with the help of another quarian (an exiled traitor). They had to attack the place in the process of searching for Gillian. And the only reason Cerberus went to the flotilla was to retrieve Gillian herself, which they failed to do.

[smudboy]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

Smud, you haven't actually read Ascension, have you?

Nope.  I wanted to keep my opinions on ME2 unbiased.  I might read it later, however.

I understand. I just wanted to point out that those three people Phaedon was talking about are Hendel Mitra, Khalee Sanders and Gillian Grayson (a biotic kid). They went to the Migrant Fleet with the help of a quarian because they thought it was the safest place for them to hide from Cerberus for the moment. Cerberus, however, still managed to get to the Migrant Fleet with the help of another quarian (an exiled traitor). They had to attack the place in the process of searching for Gillian. And the only reason Cerberus went to the flotilla was to retrieve Gillian herself, which they failed to do.

Interesting.  Had ME2 provided that information, then that would definitely be a point of contention.

Unfortunately, that is still uncomparable to the "lesser of two evils", unless that Cerberus activity involved destroying all life in the galaxy, at least twice.  (Cause we gotta have standards.)

[Phaedon]

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Positive Possibility: Enough Info/Tech/Evidence to give a small advantage against the Reapers.
Negative Possibility:  No. Destroying the base won't make Shepard lose.
[/quote]
Positive Possibility: Any advantage is worth it.
Negative Possibility: Oh you wrote the script?[/quote]
Positive Possibility: Subjective.
Negative Possibility: I'd say common sense says that we won't get an instant 'CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE' message.

[quote][quote]
No, the recording doesn't imply that he didn't know what was going on. They were hiding something from TIM, and guess what, it was not the very nature of the operation. Don't question the fact that TIM knew that horrible experiments were going on there or that he ordered the abduction of children. I'd say Ascension pretty much proves that.
[/quote]
The recording implies they were keeping something from TIM, this is true.  This is within the context of the audience learning about what was going on in here.  This is also under the suggestion that the facility went Rogue.  Which implies, something TIM did not want.  Which implies, based on what they were hiding, that it was something TIM wouldn't approve of.

Darned good guess: the things they were doing to the kids.[/quote]
Let's say that this educated guess is true, what about the abductions ?

[quote][quote]
So, they did attack the flotilla and the excuse is 'it was nothing personal' ? Great.
[/quote]
We have very little data to understand what happened.  One party says one thing, the other says another.  Who's to say who's in the right or wrong?[/quote]
Eh, both sources say that Cerberus did attack the Migrant Fleet. I don't see what you are trying to prove.

[quote][quote]
And what does attacking a flotilla of ships carrying thousands of unarmed civilians only to catch 3 people make them ? The saviours of the galaxy ?
[/quote]
I do not know where you're getting this 3 people from.

Regardless, we do not know why they attacked, or what was going on.  Attacking anyone doesn't make them good or bad, it makes them attackers.  That's like arguing anyone who fires a gun is bad.  We need to know why they fired the gun and under what circumstances.[/quote]
I'll point you to Phoenix's post.

[quote]
Bad for everyone else. And I am going to give a base to an organization that supports this ? 
[/quote]
If everyone survives the Reapers, then yes, good for everyone.

[quote][quote]
He attacked a flotilla, he has experimented on aliens and humans, only to support his 'cause'. All aliens are expendable. Some humans are too, it will help for the 'greater good'.
[/quote]
He attacked the Flotilla: no context to say whether good or bad.
He experimented on aliens and humans: proof?[/quote]
Shadow Broker intel, Pragia, Overlord, Akuze, UNC: Privateers, Ascension.

[quote]
No, the alternative isn't the Reapers winning.
[/quote]
What is then?[/quote]
Losing an advantage, but not the game ?

[quote][quote]
http://www.fanfictio.../1/Fanfic_Terms
You also read the books and find out that the so called 'not-morally gray' guy that you gave the base to is actually evil.

Oh yea.
[/quote]
More supplemental material?  I can't take much more of your crap here dude.  Whenever you want to reply to me?  Don't even bother with the external sources, thanks.  I'm still laughing at these new attempts.  Does keep me smiling.[/quote]
What's the problem exactly ? We are trying to have a debate here, I just helped you find out what IC means, and you reply with a personal attack ? Not cool.

[quote][quote]
You should really try to be more open minded. Just because you disagree with something, you can't just call it 'stupid' after dozens of arguments have been posted. 
[/quote]
If the arguments are  bull, then that's what they are.  No reason to think along those terms.[/quote]
The arguments are bull ? I don't see why you are even debating, if you don't even respect the opposite party or their points. C'mon now, all of the arguments here are bull ? None of them make sense ? 

[quote][quote]
Exactly. I am pretty sure they wouldn't mind using their new weapons against turian authorities when they raid one of their bases again. Trident *cough*.
[/quote]
Better that then letting the Reapers win.[/quote]
You are assuming that the base will be vital for the war against the Reapers.

[quote][quote]
Yeah, I am pretty sure that he'll be fine with Shepard going to the council and telling them: "Hey guys, wanna come with me to check this huge project Cerberus has been working on ? You can confiscate anything you want, you know, and you can arrest everybody, since they are space terrorists, I am pretty sure TIM won't mind you studying it and researching the tech over there either..'
[/quote]
That's what TIM said.  How he delegates the base is anyone's guess, but TIM is not against external assistance.[/quote]
I find it hard to believe that you think that TIM wouldn't mind the Council checking the base and the tech. Your opinion though.

[quote]

[quote]The base won't make too much of a difference. What it will do however, is leave a guy with serious issues with aliens (especially turians) and the Alliance who has proved to find anyone expendable for the (supposed) greater good with material that could kill a lot of civilians and soldiers. This is bigger than humanity.[/quote]

This is not about what the base will or won't do.  It's the about making the best decision, and that that choice is the best option to help stop the Reapers.

Every other consideration is inferior.
[/quote]
The Reapers are the immediate threat. Look at the bigger picture. I can see your logic behind 'every little bit helps', but the bit is too tiny for the risk, imho.

[smudboy]

Phaedon wrote...

Positive Possibility: Subjective.
Negative Possibility: I'd say common sense says that we won't get an instant 'CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE' message.

No, any advantage to take down the Reapers is good.  How can that be subjective?

We're basing the choice on pure reason here.  I don't understand what you mean.

Let's say that this educated guess is true, what about the abductions ?

I'm getting really tired of this, so I'll just say TIM is the lesser of two evils.

Eh, both sources say that Cerberus did attack the Migrant Fleet. I don't see what you are trying to prove.

And I've already stated attacking does not make anyone good or bad, right or wrong.  We need context and more details.

Losing an advantage, but not the game ?

Not following.  If the Reapers win, it's all over.

What's the problem exactly ? We are trying to have a debate here, I just helped you find out what IC means, and you reply with a personal attack ? Not cool.

I apologize if that's what it seemed like.  You're just a very funny guy with your supplemental material bullsh*t.  It's like you purposely like waving nonsense in my face expecting me to bite.

The arguments are bull ? I don't see why you are even debating, if you don't even respect the opposite party or their points. C'mon now, all of the arguments here are bull ? None of them make sense ? 

If an argument is bull, I immediately commit to the flames.  I said nothing of everything being bull.

You are assuming that the base will be vital for the war against the Reapers.

It's certainly better than nothing.

I find it hard to believe that you think that TIM wouldn't mind the Council checking the base and the tech. Your opinion though.

TIM's actual words.

The Reapers are the immediate threat. Look at the bigger picture. I can see your logic behind 'every little bit helps', but the bit is too tiny for the risk, imho.

The bigger picture is the Reapers.  They have won, always, constantly, forever.

TIM is a scrub.

All your opinions of TIM and his agenda are irrelevant.  All your opinions on who should get the base is irrelevant.  Throwing away a tool that could very well help you prevent cyclic galactic genocide is very, very stupid.

[Inverness Moon]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

You're making completely unfounded assumptions about what information EDI gained in order to support your argument. We have no idea what information EDI gathered other than the picture of what is supposedly Harbinger that was shown in the final cutscene.

Not only that, but that cutscene happens after you deal with the base, so Shepard can't use that as evidence of anything when deciding what to do with the base.

I don't assume that paragons do anything. I have yet to encounter a logical argument for destroying the base. Yours isn't logical.

Neither is yours.  Base-keepers argue that they keep the base under an assumption there's anything of note on it, or anything they can use.  Also, how is it unfounded to claim EDI did get information?  The datapad shows a picture yes, but there's obviously words on that picture, and I doubt that picture was the only piece of information.  Also, that same cutscene occurs whether you keep the base or blow it up.  Technically metagaming, yes.  But it is a valid point that you get the information whether you blow up the base or not

Sorry, but if you think I'm keeping the base because I assume it has something useful then you're wrong. 

I keep the base because it gives us the opportunity to discover if there is something useful. Destroying the base does not allow for that. Additionally, destroying the base lessens the chance that we retrieve useful information out of the whole ordeal, which is too great a risk in my opinion.

You get some information whether you blow up the base or not, but that is hardly relevant. What is relevant is the value of that information, which is unknown at this time and not something Shepard would know when deciding what to do with the base.

[RiouHotaru]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
So, perhaps the base DOES contain vital intelligence...which is now redundant because EDI already HAS everything we need.  Therefore, there's no reason to keep the base, and especially not to hand it over to TIM.

Don't assume that us Paragons are just blowing up the base on a whim or because our inner conscience told us too.  It's just as pragmatic to blow up the base as to keep it.

Assumptions, assumptions. It comes down to what I said at the start. To make destroying the base a viable decision, you need to assume that there's nothing indispensible (left) in it. But you can't afford that assumption because we're grasping at straws for survival. We can't afford to miss *anything* because we have absolutely no idea what we might need. My argument stands.

And my argument stands as well.  Your argument rides on the assumption that there is any meaningful technology that can be utilizied/reverse-engineered/etc, in time before the Reapers arrive.  I love how you claim your argument is somehow any more meaningful than mine, when yours is based on a similar assumption.  Also, destroying the base being viable is also dependent on whether or not you think you can trust Cerberus with it as well.

Wrong on both counts:

(1) My argument does not depend on there actually being anything indispensible on the base. My argument depends on the chance of there being such a thing. If there is any chance that there is such a thing, we cannot afford to destroy the base.

(2) No,  trusting Cerberus or not has absolutely no impact on the decision. Because it doesn't matter what Cerberus does with it, it's always the lesser evil compared with letting the Reapers win. Since the chances of both are unknown, the quality of the worst possible outcome decides the matter.

PLUS

If the C-Base is spared, it still can be destroyed at some point in the future, if it's continued existence proves to be undesirable. It's not irreversible, it's not "the only chance". If this decision proves wrong, it can be corrected.

If the C-Base is destroyed, it can't be un-destroyed. It's irreversible. If this decision proves wrong, it can't be corrected.

1) The fact that your arguments depend on the chance of there being working technology which can be used to aid with stopping the Reapers in a reasonable time frame doesn't help you.  So, even if there's a 1% chance of there being USEABLE technology, you'll keep the base?

2) Also, given Cerberus' track record, I think trusting them is a big function.  Sure, they won't end life as we know it, but given their team on the dead Reaper was indoctrinated, is there any guarantee the same thing won't happen here either?  What if they do something and screw up like with Overlord?

The problem with the "Keep the base or destroy it decision" is the risk management and cost/reward.  Is there anything on the base which makes it worth keeping?  How much technology must there be before it becomes worth keeping?  Are the people you're giving to reliable enough that you can expect results from them in a reasonable period of time, and will they not screw it up?

Again, there's ample reasoning for both.  This is the same cost/reward decision making which resulted in people either saving the Council or not.

Also, overall, this argument only works when thinking from Shepard's perspective.  We, the players, know that whether you keep the base or not, it will be possible to stop the Reapers, Bioware won't make the game unwinnable based on this decision.  Whether or not your Shepard keeps the base or destroys it only matters in terms of roleplaying, and can be justified in either direction.

Again, either stance is equally valid.

[Inverness Moon]

RiouHotaru wrote...

1) The fact that your arguments depend on the chance of there being working technology which can be used to aid with stopping the Reapers in a reasonable time frame doesn't help you.  So, even if there's a 1% chance of there being USEABLE technology, you'll keep the base?

2) Also, given Cerberus' track record, I think trusting them is a big function.  Sure, they won't end life as we know it, but given their team on the dead Reaper was indoctrinated, is there any guarantee the same thing won't happen here either?  What if they do something and screw up like with Overlord?

1) Why the hell not? Everyone in the galaxy is facing extinction. You have a near-zero chance of survival. A 1% chance is better than 0%. If you disagree then I don't think you understand the magnitude of the threat we're facing.

2) This is of course no guarantee that Cerberus wont have some problem, but the risk involved in giving the base to Cerberus is less than the risk created by destroying it and attempting to "wing it" it against the reapers because you don't like your limited options.

The problem with the "Keep the base or destroy it decision" is the risk management and cost/reward.  Is there anything on the base which makes it worth keeping?  How much technology must there be before it becomes worth keeping?  Are the people you're giving to reliable enough that you can expect results from them in a reasonable period of time, and will they not screw it up?

Again, there's ample reasoning for both.  This is the same cost/reward decision making which resulted in people either saving the Council or not.

Also, overall, this argument only works when thinking from Shepard's perspective.  We, the players, know that whether you keep the base or not, it will be possible to stop the Reapers, Bioware won't make the game unwinnable based on this decision.  Whether or not your Shepard keeps the base or destroys it only matters in terms of roleplaying, and can be justified in either direction.

Again, either stance is equally valid.

Those questions can all be answered by keeping the base.

The whole point of this argument is about what you would do if you were in Shepard's shoes and why, so you don't need to repeat the obvious. We know BioWare will allow you to save the galaxy either way, no matter how naive the paragon decision is, as so many have said.

I also completely disagree that either choice is valid from Shepard's point of view.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 06 octobre 2010 - 09:55 .

[RiouHotaru]

^And once again, the Paragons get flak because we're "naive" or "Lawful Stupid" *sigh*



1) I do understand the magnitude of the decision, that doesn't change the fact that just because the situation is dire, means you must take any and EVERY possible action you think has the remotest chance of helping you.



2) "Winging it?" Vigil himself said the Reaper's feared a united galaxy that could act against them. I've got (for my Shepards) Quarians, the Geth, the Krogans, and now possibly the Council Races on my side to help me come up with a plan, assuming plans aren't already in the works. This is hardly "winging it"



And I disagree that either choice isn't valid. Just because my Shepards are paragons doesn't mean they don't realize what the base could or could not do. It's a snap decision judgement call made because you simply don't have the time to do anything else. We each hold a completely different stance based on our different perspectives of the situation. But please don't resort to name-calling Paragons. That's just silly.

[GuardianAngel470]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Really, I don't know why people can't see that it doesn't matter what TIM will do with the base, as long as we get the intelligence we need from it. There are two worst-case scenarios:

(1) If the base does not contain vital intelligence about the Reapers and we keep it, then whatever price in Cerberus atrocities we'll pay for it will have been for nothing. But even if that causes millions of deaths, that doesn't matter because

(2) If the base does contain vital intelligence about the Reapers and we destroy it, then we will all die.

So basically, every single argument that has been brought against keeping the base rests on the assumption that the base, with 100% certainty, does not contain vital intelligence about the Reapers. Metagaming, we do know that's true, but if we stay in-world, we cannot afford that assumption because the alternative could be galaxy-wide extinction. It doesn't matter what TIM will do with the base because we cannot afford the risk of destroying it. We can, however, afford the risk of giving it to TIM.

It isn't just intelligence. It is tech. If it were just intelligence then there would be no problem.

[jbblue05]

Cerberus attack on the Flotilla is a 100% the Quarian captain Y'sin Mal' fault.

He knowingly harbored Cerberbus fugitives, he knew Cerberus would come for them,

he accepted the risks knowing that he would put his ship and the entire Flotilla at risk.

He could've easily escorted Gillian, Hendel, and Kahlee to the Citadel or an Alliance Station but chose to put everybody at risk



I'm not sure about if Cerberus commandoes were killing civillians but I know Golo the Quarian was killing civillians as an act of revenge for his exile and I know Golo was arming the bomb.

[scotchtape622]

jbblue05 wrote...

Cerberus attack on the Flotilla is a 100% the Quarian captain Y'sin Mal' fault.
He knowingly harbored Cerberbus fugitives, he knew Cerberus would come for them,
he accepted the risks knowing that he would put his ship and the entire Flotilla at risk.
He could've easily escorted Gillian, Hendel, and Kahlee to the Citadel or an Alliance Station but chose to put everybody at risk

I'm not sure about if Cerberus commandoes were killing civillians but I know Golo the Quarian was killing civillians as an act of revenge for his exile and I know Golo was arming the bomb.

Are you really a big enough of a Cerberus groupie to convince yourself that?

[scotchtape622]

You mean experiment on a twelve year old girl? Wow...

[jbblue05]

scotchtape622 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Cerberus attack on the Flotilla is a 100% the Quarian captain Y'sin Mal' fault.
He knowingly harbored Cerberbus fugitives, he knew Cerberus would come for them,
he accepted the risks knowing that he would put his ship and the entire Flotilla at risk.
He could've easily escorted Gillian, Hendel, and Kahlee to the Citadel or an Alliance Station but chose to put everybody at risk

I'm not sure about if Cerberus commandoes were killing civillians but I know Golo the Quarian was killing civillians as an act of revenge for his exile and I know Golo was arming the bomb.

Are you really a big enough of a Cerberus groupie to convince yourself that?

Because its true and is supported by Mass Effect Ascension.

What's your version?

Modifié par jbblue05, 06 octobre 2010 - 10:49 .

[scotchtape622]

jbblue05 wrote...

scotchtape622 wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Cerberus attack on the Flotilla is a 100% the Quarian captain Y'sin Mal' fault.
He knowingly harbored Cerberbus fugitives, he knew Cerberus would come for them,
he accepted the risks knowing that he would put his ship and the entire Flotilla at risk.
He could've easily escorted Gillian, Hendel, and Kahlee to the Citadel or an Alliance Station but chose to put everybody at risk

I'm not sure about if Cerberus commandoes were killing civillians but I know Golo the Quarian was killing civillians as an act of revenge for his exile and I know Golo was arming the bomb.

Are you really a big enough of a Cerberus groupie to convince yourself that?

Because its true and is supported by Mass Effect Ascension.

What's your version?

The same story, but you are blaming the victim here. Should Western nations not do what they think is right because they are afraid of terrorist attacks? Do we let evil men change the way we behave?

"They just gave her some medication, which greatly enhanced her biotic powers... "

They gave her drugs that made her autism worst, and that was when she wasn't in a position to be fully controlled. Once kidnapped by Cerberus, their experiments wouldn't have to be hindered by the government, and her life would become worse than Jack's childhood. Especially since she would obviously resist.

[scotchtape622]

Oh gosh...



Whether or not it went rouge, it is clear that TIM approved the kidnapping of children for experimentation, which is off the ethical charts. And you just "countered" a tiny part of my statement, ignoring the rest of it.

[scotchtape622]

Tell me that again if that were to happen in real life. (Obviously not for biotics)

TIM jumped the line from "pushing the boundaries" to "manically evil" a long time ago.

Modifié par scotchtape622, 06 octobre 2010 - 11:00 .