2146 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, yes, I don't advance humans over everything else so I'm a race traitor.

No.  I am not a white supremist, I don't se the logic in holding someone above others based on accident of birth, that does not make me a race traitor.  Were I to advocate white submission, the idea that we need/deserve to be enslaved/subservient to some other race (take your pick really) then I would be.  It's not that you don't advocate human domination it's that you seem (and if I'm mistaken I apologize) to advocate alien domination of humanity.  To put it in non-racial terms if you advocated and worked towards the domination of your nation by another that's treason.

[Xilizhra]

Identity of kin is important whether you like it or not. To your Shepard, race may not define him/her, but there will always be some people more important than the others. Don't tell me that your squad is just as important as a random sapient life on an unknown planet, and number is the only thing that matters.

That's never been tested, so I can't honestly answer it. I do know that I saved Ashley on Virmire because she was the one with the salarian team at the time.

It's not that you don't advocate human domination it's that you seem (and if I'm mistaken I apologize) to advocate alien domination of humanity. To put it in non-racial terms if you advocated and worked towards the domination of your nation by another that's treason.

Actually, I'm an advocate of no species dominating any other. I simply prefer one species to be dominated than to have all but one species dominated.

[Zulu_DFA]

DPSSOC wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, yes, I don't advance humans over everything else so I'm a race traitor.

No.  I am not a white supremist, I don't se the logic in holding someone above others based on accident of birth, that does not make me a race traitor.  Were I to advocate white submission, the idea that we need/deserve to be enslaved/subservient to some other race (take your pick really) then I would be.  It's not that you don't advocate human domination it's that you seem (and if I'm mistaken I apologize) to advocate alien domination of humanity.  To put it in non-racial terms if you advocated and worked towards the domination of your nation by another that's treason.

Even if one takes politics as a competition and not a struggle for dominance, withholding the right to compete from one of the competitors makes the competition unfair. Destroys the idea of the competition actually, establishing that very dominance which was supposed to be avoided by maintaining the competitive approach.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Identity of kin is important whether you like it or not. To your Shepard, race may not define him/her, but there will always be some people more important than the others. Don't tell me that your squad is just as important as a random sapient life on an unknown planet, and number is the only thing that matters.

That's never been tested, so I can't honestly answer it. I do know that I saved Ashley on Virmire because she was the one with the salarian team at the time.

Lol, again we see a paragon makin a tactically silly decision. Going to the AA Tower jeopardizes the mission's objective!

That, BTW, is another example, of how being renegade sucks. My Shepard liked Kaiden more, and I, as player, would prefer to have Kaidan in ME2 as the VS, but it always has to be him who dies there.

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not that you don't advocate human domination it's that you seem (and if I'm mistaken I apologize) to advocate alien domination of humanity. To put it in non-racial terms if you advocated and worked towards the domination of your nation by another that's treason.

Actually, I'm an advocate of no species dominating any other. I simply prefer one species to be dominated than to have all but one species dominated.

What's the difference, if the genes don't matter to you?

[Xilizhra]

Lol, again we see a paragon makin a tactically silly decision. Going to the AA Tower jeopardizes the mission's objective!



That, BTW, is another example, of how being renegade sucks. My Shepard liked Kaiden more, and I, as player, would prefer to have Kaidan in ME2 as the VS, but it always has to be him who dies there.

That isn't even a Paragon/Renegade decision; also, leaving the AA tower undefended jeopardizes your chances of escape. which are arguably more important since you're the only one who knows about the Reapers now. Even if the Virmire facility survived, finding the Conduit is more important.

What's the difference, if the genes don't matter to you?

My way has fewer people being dominated.

[Moiaussi]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Lol, again we see a paragon makin a tactically silly decision. Going to the AA Tower jeopardizes the mission's objective!

That, BTW, is another example, of how being renegade sucks. My Shepard liked Kaiden more, and I, as player, would prefer to have Kaidan in ME2 as the VS, but it always has to be him who dies there.

Off topic, but if the AA tower isn't taken down you the Normandy can't pick you up, in which case you likely die to the nuke and the main mission against the reapers fails regardless of how safe the universe is against a new wave of Krogan.

If the AA tower wasn't vital to the mission, why send anyone there in the first place?

[DPSSOC]

General User wrote...

The bill of rights and similar documents are not creating political power, simply taking it from one group and giving it to another.  By giving the people rights you limit what the aristocracy is able to do, reducing their influence on events (if not by much).  Any time a group gains influence one or more other groups lose it.  By giving women and blacks equal rights you increase their power while reducing the power of white men (who can no longer do whatever they please without opposition).

Oh, I see what you’re getting at! You’re talking about individual rights vs. the power of the state, yes? I can see that. I was looking at varying bills of rights as destroying political power in that they place limits on the state. When you put it like that I can half-ass agree with you. I can’t commit the rest of the way since political power and group influence are so very different.
 
Take an asari matriarch, her legal standing is the same as any other UAR citizen, but because of who she is and the life she’s led, her voice carries weight. She wields great influence, but little power. There are similar people in contemporary human society.
 A powerful Roman general might be the flip side of that coin (I’m less confident of this analogy). He is, put broadly, the right arm of his state, but he takes all his orders from a Senate or Emperor (not always a sure thing with Roman generals). He commands great power but has relatively little influence.

And here's where we disagree.  Let's look at the Matriarch, if she so chose she could convert her influence into political power by encouraging other Asari to vote as she does.  Martin Luther King Jr is an example of converting influence into power.  Similarly with the General because you're wrong he does have a great deal of influence (over his men).  Furthermore he can use the power he has as a bargaining chip to wield influence.  It's similar to what the Captain of the Raya says.  The Raya produces a good portion of the Migrant Fleets food, that's the power they have.  This results in te rest of the Migrant Fleet trying to kep them happy so they don't up and leave, that's their infuence.  Influence and power are tied together and the ability to convert one to the other hinges solely on desire.

General User wrote... 
This all relates back to the Collector Base in that… I got nothing. Something to do with TIM, right? Eh, it's the weekend.

I believe it started discussing how the Collector base could be used to give power/influence to humanity that they might change the political system for the better, offering a benign reason to keep the base intact.  That eventually evolved into a discussion on the nature of power/influence.  That's the one problem with not having pyramid quotes (as opposed to the many problems with having them) it makes it more dificult to see which discussions are truly off topic and which are simply tangential.

[Zulu_DFA]

Xilizhra wrote...

Lol, again we see a paragon makin a tactically silly decision. Going to the AA Tower jeopardizes the mission's objective!

That, BTW, is another example, of how being renegade sucks. My Shepard liked Kaiden more, and I, as player, would prefer to have Kaidan in ME2 as the VS, but it always has to be him who dies there.

That isn't even a Paragon/Renegade decision; also, leaving the AA tower undefended jeopardizes your chances of escape. which are arguably more important since you're the only one who knows about the Reapers now. Even if the Virmire facility survived, finding the Conduit is more important.

Lol, using one's importance as an excuse to go off mission? That's cowardice under fire, my friend. Punishable by death at times.

Besides, the one at the AA tower reports that it's been disabled, and, IIRC, even recommends you to abandon them.

Xilizhra wrote...

What's the difference, if the genes don't matter to you?

My way has fewer people being dominated.

No, it doesn't. Some of the aliens (you saved, to the dismay of the Council) you can't even count individually.

But who says your alien Council won't start breeding Humans as domestic animals to serve the needs of the Council races? They did it to the Krogans once.

[Xilizhra]

Besides, the one at the AA tower reports that it's been disabled, and, IIRC, even recommends you to abandon them.

They both recommend that you abandon them; the one at the bomb says that they can set it off soon enough.

No, it doesn't. Some of the aliens (you saved, to the dismay of the Council) you can't even count individually.

And why doesn't it?

[General User]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

General User wrote...
 A powerful Roman general might be the flip side of that coin (I’m less confident of this analogy). He is, put broadly, the right arm of his state, but he takes all his orders from a Senate or Emperor (not always a sure thing with Roman generals). He commands great power but has relatively little influence.

This example pretty much defeats you. There were plenty of Roman generals, who became emperors themselves or put and removed emperors as they pleased. In case you didn't know, the term "imperator" initially meant "commander-in-chief". So no, infuence IS the same as power. One may be directly measured in the other.

What you seem to refer as "influence" is "authority" - legal (such as that of elected or appointed per standard political procedure public officials) or moral (such as that of religious leaders, famous writers, scientists and so on.) That's only one source of power. It can be very significant, or not so much, ususally depending on how much power your rivals can accumulate from the same sources or other sources (such as brute force, like in case of Roman / Banana republic general, mob boss, etc.)

And come on, the idea that "natural resources are infinite (rather so large as to be practically infinite)" is nonsense. because the amount of biomass dependent on these resources is "potentially infinite". At any given point of time the resources available may exceed the needs of the current population or be insufficient. You don't want the latter to happen.

Like I said, it’s a pretty poor analogy. What’d you think of the matriarch one?  That one holds together a lot better.
 
Influence, power, and (since it’s been brought it up) authority are linked concepts, but they are most definitely not the same. Power is compulsive, influence is not. The authority with which one can speak on a matter is a gauge of influence and may be a measure of power. 
 
As far as natural resources being (practically) infinite… Who said anything about biomass? Biomass certainly isn’t infinite, even practically or potentially so. And how does a population’s ability or lack thereof, to access resources in any way change the basic truth that natural resources are by nature infinite?

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...
What’d you think of the matriarch one?

Pretty much what DPSSOC said. A matriarch can easily convert her moral authority in political power. Which the matriarchs seem to do all the time.

General User wrote...
how does a population’s ability or lack thereof, to access resources in any way change the basic truth that natural resources are by nature infinite?

Because the theoretical infinity of the natural resources is irrelevant at any given point of time, since it's only the available resources that count as "resources". You can't "resort" to something that's not available.

[General User]

@DPSSOC & Zulu_DFA, in lieu of post chain
 
Power and influence are of course linked, just not the same. Now see I would say the matriarch or her human equivalent, are exerting influence on their respective societies not power over them. The line is not always evident. Similarly with the Raya. That ship, rather the quarians aboard her, use their influence to create a power structure by which every quarian theoretically benefits. I like the “tied together” phrasing. That’s about where I am actually.
 
The infinite nature of natural resources isn’t irrelevant at any given point in time, only when a particular resource grows scarce. And it is at such times that the power of ingenuity and innovation kick in and begin to supply alternatives. Of course you can’t resort to something that isn’t available! The trick is to make it available.
 
If the worst someone can say about me is “occasionally goes off-topic” I am a paragon indeed.

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...

@DPSSOC & Zulu_DFA, in lieu of post chain
 
Power and influence are of course linked, just not the same. Now see I would say the matriarch or her human equivalent, are exerting influence on their respective societies not power over them. The line is not always evident. Similarly with the Raya. That ship, rather the quarians aboard her, use their influence to create a power structure by which every quarian theoretically benefits. I like the “tied together” phrasing. That’s about where I am actually.

You're mistaking "benign power" for influence and "rude influence" for power. Usually it is said that a person is "influential" (as opposed to "powerful"), when they can't push through with their agenda on their own, because their influence/power is not enough and only weighs in when a larger power house employs them to add the power of their influence to the pile.

But of the Asari matriarchs it's clearly stated, that they are powerful, due to their great influence.

 

General User wrote...
The infinite nature of natural resources isn’t irrelevant at any given point in time, only when a particular resource grows scarce. And it is at such times that the power of ingenuity and innovation kick in and begin to supply alternatives. Of course you can’t resort to something that isn’t available! The trick is to make it available.
 

The trick is that you have always to spend something on making new resources available, and if you fail to do so before running out of what you've had, then BAM! Checkmate. You've run out of resources, they came to an end. Now you have to wait until your population goes down back to almost zero, preying on each other. Just talk to Thane, or play StarCraft.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 09 octobre 2010 - 04:34 .

[General User]

Specific natural resources are not depleted overnight. We will not wake up one morning to find all the zinc missing. As a specific resource becomes rarer it becomes progressively more expensive. Thus alternatives, once prohibitively expensive (there is never only one way to do anything), become more and more common. As they become more common, they become cheaper/more efficient. Fully depleting specific resources is not possible in a free-market economy. Petroleum is the perfect example of this.



I’m not familiar with StarCraft but it’s my understanding that Thane’s home world became overpopulated and degenerated into a Hobbesian nightmare. Like I said, a population’s ability to access resources does not affect the infinite nature of the resources themselves.

[RiouHotaru]

smudboy wrote...

As Dean stated before in an earlier post here, TIM wouldn't be asking to save the base if he knew the 4 jpgs were going to "help even more."  The base would help even more.

The base would help TIM even more.  Not necessarily Shepard.

[RiouHotaru]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
"Stop Collectors" seamlessly becomes "Destroy base" because the two objectives pretty much go hand-in-hand. 

They go hand in hand only starting with confirmation that there is only one space station there and ending with TIM's telling you there is "another option" [to stop the Collectors]. So no, at the moment of making the final choice, it's not "hand in hand" at all. It' more like "either... or..." [blow the Base and go extinct (but proud of yourself), or keep the Base and have a shot at the Reapers (but with the Magnificent Bastard calling it)].

RiouHotaru wrote...
 Blowing away the base = stopping the Collectors.

Neutron purging the Base = stopping the Collectors.

RiouHotaru wrote...
It's just a theory that the information on the pad will serve as a substitute, since the gameplay results are supposed to be fairly equal.

There is also a theory, that the datapad was only there to appease those that would not listen to TIM and keep the Base, thus rendereing the entire ME2 pointless in terms of the story progression.

But seriously, all the intel from the Base on a single datapad? Flash technologies must be real cool in the 22nd century... But for all we know, the databanks on the Base could be bigger than the whole Normandy and based on a much more advanced data storage tech (which alone would make it worth preserving the Base), so keep fooling yourself.

On point #1, I'll concede that you're right, as soon as TIM gives you the option to radiation pulse the base, you''re no longer limited to JUST blowing the base...but really, can we stop with the "O hey paragons ur idiots" thing?  I mean really, I get that you think that, metagaming aside, we're all going to die, but since I'm willing to concede that keeping base has merit, it'd be nice to get some love for my idea too?  Or maybe we should just rename the topic?

As for the pad, I realize it's a stretch, and if it's equivilant, it renders the decision moot, but then consider saving vs. killing the Council.  The impact in ME2 in terms of the plot is...well...minimum, to be polite.

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...

smudboy wrote...

As Dean stated before in an earlier post here, TIM wouldn't be asking to save the base if he knew the 4 jpgs were going to "help even more."  The base would help even more.

The base would help TIM even more.  Not necessarily Shepard.

If the alternative is the Reapers destroy everything, then yes, it is helping TIM, Shepard and everyone else.

[RiouHotaru]

smudboy wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

smudboy wrote...

As Dean stated before in an earlier post here, TIM wouldn't be asking to save the base if he knew the 4 jpgs were going to "help even more."  The base would help even more.

The base would help TIM even more.  Not necessarily Shepard.

If the alternative is the Reapers destroy everything, then yes, it is helping TIM, Shepard and everyone else.

Why does everyone deal with extremes?  Why do people have to equate destroying the base with signing a galactic death sentence?

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...

smudboy wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

smudboy wrote...

As Dean stated before in an earlier post here, TIM wouldn't be asking to save the base if he knew the 4 jpgs were going to "help even more."  The base would help even more.

The base would help TIM even more.  Not necessarily Shepard.

If the alternative is the Reapers destroy everything, then yes, it is helping TIM, Shepard and everyone else.

Why does everyone deal with extremes?  Why do people have to equate destroying the base with signing a galactic death sentence?

Welcome to the Mass Effect universe.
Where there are creatures called Reapers.
That enact such extremes.  They have this little thing.  You know, it's not a huge deal or anything.  Something called the cycle of destruction?

Did you get the memo?

[Inverness Moon]

General User wrote...

I might just be grasping at straws here, but how is any system, missile defense in this case, 100% effective? How is it possible to create a targeting system that cannot be fooled, spoofed, or circumvented?  
 
On a philosophical level, this sounds like stagnation to me. Everyone “knows” it can’t be done so everyone stops trying. Forget the dang Reapers and the double-dang CB, whoever invents a workable decoy (or stealth) missile will rule the galaxy!
 
Neat website.

Point defense lasers are computer-controlled. If they're aimed correctly they will always hit the target. The only way to get around this is to deploy so many missiles that the turrets can't shoot them all down. That would be exceedingly expensive and difficult. It is much cheaper to fire a 2kg slug at 1.3 percent the speed of light from a dreadnought than it is to throw a swarm of nukes at a target and hope some get through.

Even if you had decoy missiles, assuming they can't be detected, it would still take an immense amount of missiles being fired at once to get past the defenses. You'd need to have the ship specially equipped to fire so many at once, and dedicate a lot of space inside the ship to carrying all the missiles you need for such an attack to be effective.

Nukes, and missiles in general are simply impractical.

Well, it's not like indoctrination is a complete mystery; we do have at least a somewhat comprehensive idea how it works, and what to look for. I don’t doubt the Reapers have more subtle shades of indoctrination they just haven’t had the opportunity to use yet. But to be honest, simply knowing indoctrination exists and needs to be looked out for is our most singular advantage short of an "anti-indoctrination" device, which is speculative at best under any circumstances.

Again, how would we know what to look for? Obviously the more indoctrinated you are the more damaged your mind becomes, but we still don't know how subtle it can be. It's too much of a risk to go in blind.

Also, you said the intelligence agencies couldn't handle that stuff, don't you think the reapers would seek to indoctrinate them first? What if the head of some intelligence agency becomes indoctrinated somehow and pulls strings to let some people get past detection (assuming we can even detect if someone has been indoctrinated), then what?

This is the same line of reasoning that some people use when blowing up the base. They blow it up because they hope, not know, that there is some other solution and that they can get by without it. You don't really know if we'll be able to deal with indoctrinated agents, but you have predicted that we can so you're willing to blow up the base. That is too great a risk to take, in my opinion.

[Ieldra]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Why does everyone deal with extremes?  Why do people have to equate destroying the base with signing a galactic death sentence?

We do not equate it. It's a risk calculation. We work from the following assumptions:

(1) The Reapers are significantly more technologically advanced than galactic civilization.
(2) If the present balance of technology does not change, the Reapers will win and exterminate galactic civilization.
These assumptions come from observing Sovereign in battle. Sovereign would have destroyed the whole fleet if it hadn't been forced to animate Saren to complete its objectives. A whole fleet of Reapers would be invincible for the current capabilities of galactic civilization.

From that, we draw the conclusion that
(1) There will be no winning against the Reapers without increased understanding of their capabilities, so that means to neutralize them can be developed. In order to understand their capabilities, understanding their technology is a necessity. To understand their technology, we need any samples we can get our hands on.
(2) Given that the derelict Reaper is now inaccessible or even destroyed, the base presents the best chance of gaining better understanding of Reaper capabilities. We do not know how high that chance is, but we can plausibly assume it's greater than anywhere else we know of.

This means that destroying the base destroys the only known large sample of what might contain a vital strategic resource. We don't know if that resource is there, but the base is the biggest and most complex known sample, so it's a plausible assumption that if the understanding we need can be found at all, it can be found there. It also means we cannot afford to destroy the base before we have thoroughly examined it. If we keep the base and do not find anything, then we might pay for that with Cerberus atrocities of an unknown magnitude. But that's the lesser evil: if we destroy the base and there was that vital understanding to be found in it, we will have doomed ourselves to extinction through our own decision.

Now the question: what would you rather risk? The chance we doom life in the galaxy to extinction by destroying the base, or the chance that Cerberus will commit atrocities of a unknown magnitude by keeping it. Both are not certainties, but would you even risk the first?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 octobre 2010 - 08:49 .

[General User]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Point defense lasers are computer-controlled. If they're aimed correctly they will always hit the target. The only way to get around this is to deploy so many missiles that the turrets can't shoot them all down. That would be exceedingly expensive and difficult. It is much cheaper to fire a 2kg slug at 1.3 percent the speed of light from a dreadnought than it is to throw a swarm of nukes at a target and hope some get through.

Even if you had decoy missiles, assuming they can't be detected, it would still take an immense amount of missiles being fired at once to get past the defenses. You'd need to have the ship specially equipped to fire so many at once, and dedicate a lot of space inside the ship to carrying all the missiles you need for such an attack to be effective.

Nukes, and missiles in general are simply impractical.

See I don’t get why that is exactly. I understand the rationale; I just don’t think it makes any sense. 
 
If point defenses are such an incredible technology, how does anything not traveling at the speed of light get past them? 
 
If a machined slug can be fired at X percent of light speed, why can’t nuclear warheads or shaped charges? In other words, why can’t a missile be mass accelerated? Why must a slug fired form a dreadnought or cruiser not have a guidance system and payload? Who says the missiles have to be terribly big to begin with?
 
Why can’t a missile have an FTL drive? No laser can intercept something traveling faster than light. Expenses be damned, they don’t call ‘em warbucks for nothing! Besides, if we lose, how much does a new galaxy cost?
 
Why!?! Damn you Bioware! WHY!?! Or, umm… WHY NOT!?! As the case may be.

Again, how would we know what to look for? Obviously the more indoctrinated you are the more damaged your mind becomes, but we still don't know how subtle it can be. It's too much of a risk to go in blind.

Also, you said the intelligence agencies couldn't handle that stuff, don't you think the reapers would seek to indoctrinate them first? What if the head of some intelligence agency becomes indoctrinated somehow and pulls strings to let some people get past detection (assuming we can even detect if someone has been indoctrinated), then what?

This is the same line of reasoning that some people use when blowing up the base. They blow it up because they hope, not know, that there is some other solution and that they can get by without it. You don't really know if we'll be able to deal with indoctrinated agents, but you have predicted that we can so you're willing to blow up the base. That is too great a risk to take, in my opinion.

I’m not a counter-intel specialist, not that that will stop me from offering an opinion however . I don’t see how a counter indoctrination program would be dramatically different from standard counter-intelligence work in many regards. Monitor the whereabouts, activities, and behaviors of your personnel. Require peer-reporting of suspicious behavior. Follow-up on all reports. Vigilance would be the watchword.  You'd need a similar program even with the CB, and even if said CB provides insight into indoctrination, the Reapers could still use non-indoctrination based infiltration methods.
 
What if an intel chief becomes indoctrinated herself? Well, that would be bad. It’s also highly speculative. Not too far removed from that silly “what if the CB is a trap” argument. Any plan/strategy involves risks of one shape or kind. The risks are manageable.

Edit:  BTW great call on the BattleStar Galactica!  That show is awesome!

Modifié par General User, 09 octobre 2010 - 11:47 .

[Jabarai]

While getting back to the original topic, I must admit it's rather interesting seeing people spending hours discussing the pros and cons of keeping the base. And then questioning them, further speculating and debating and so on... After all, after the human reaper is destroyed Shepard doesn't really have much time to make up his mind. Obviously the choice came as a complete surprise so I thought that I - as the player - had only one chance of being in the same situation as my Shepard. That meant that I forced myself to make up my mind quickly (say, 20 to 30 seconds).



Oh, and I naturally blew up the base. Simply because:

- the rewards didn't seem significant enough to assure victory over the Reapers,

- I wouldn't let Cerberus touch anything that might eventually put them and/or humanity in advantage over any of the other races and perhaps most importantly

- the tests and abductions of humans were a disgrace and I would see that none of the results would be used by anyone, because that would've meant we never were above the Reapers.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

RiouHotaru wrote...

smudboy wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

smudboy wrote...

As Dean stated before in an earlier post here, TIM wouldn't be asking to save the base if he knew the 4 jpgs were going to "help even more."  The base would help even more.

The base would help TIM even more.  Not necessarily Shepard.

If the alternative is the Reapers destroy everything, then yes, it is helping TIM, Shepard and everyone else.

Why does everyone deal with extremes?  Why do people have to equate destroying the base with signing a galactic death sentence?

Mainly because of the cycle that the Reapers have always won so far against races that undoubtably put up a fight but could not match the technological might of the Reapers.

The Collector Base is the first major advantage we could have over the previous races and something that was NOT meant to be found.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 octobre 2010 - 11:08 .