2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

[quote][quote]GuardianAngel470 wrote...

My arguement is that while the base is a valuable asset, giving it to TIM could result in the return of the Reapers. So I ask you, how is that a logical risk to take?[/quote]
 
The Reapers are coming, I know it, you know it.  So whether you give the base to TIM or not the Reapers will return the only difference is by saving the base there's a chance of gaining valuable intel, while destroying the base you have nothing.[/quote]
You don't have the risk of giving the base to TIM.

[quote][quote]GuardianAngel470 wrote...
I didn't know what TIM would use the base for, but I knew it was too big of a risk. He might use it somehow to rile up the rest of the galaxy, and when it would take a united galaxy to beat the reapers, making the other species' hate humanity is a bad strategic move. In my mind this would nullify any gain from the base.[/quote]

Ok to this I must ask why?  Why would TIM try to turn all species against humanity it makes no sense.  I understand many people think Cerberus wants to enslave all non-humans, but think about it logically.  TIM knows the Reapers are coming and has a fair idea of what kind of threat they represent, why in the name of all things rational and sane would TIM start picking a fight with the rest of the galaxy?  I'll admit TIM is ruthless and amoral but I've seen no evidence to support the idea that he is either stupid or insane.[/quote]
Stupid ? I wouldn't say so. Insane ? Nope. He does, however, have issues with aliens (and I can see why) and he is a criminal. Cerberus has murdered both police/security officers and innocent civilians in order to make sure that their guys won't get caught (Trident). It makes sense that they will be using it against anyone that tries to stop them, C-Sec, Alliance, aliens etc.

[quote][quote]GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Or he might go all out and try and make a reaper. My shep challenged him with that idea and he didn't deny it. In fact, he provided evidence to support the idea that he might. He probably couldn't, but just trying would result in the above scenario.[/quote]

Again why would he do this?  It's all well and good to say "TIM might build a Reaper" but you need to provide an explanation of motivation that would drive him to such an action.  Personally I can't see it happening, it'd be like the humans on Battlestar Galactica saying, "The Cylons are attacking, build more Cylons."  I could see him trying to build a dreadnaught of equal power to a Reaper but not a Reaper itself.  I'm not trying to dismiss the risk such actions would represent but i can't see any reason why he would take such action.[/quote]
Gotta agree there, but giving any weapon to a criminal, doesn't make them less dangerous.

[quote][quote]GuardianAngel470 wrote...
Or hell, he might do something totally unexpected, like create a Reaper Avatar that can kill krogan with its bare hands and feet, use biotics to destroy a shielded enemy, and communicate with the reapers data instantaneously. this kind of thing could be used to research weaknesses that need to be verified, orchestrate elaborate plans for the return of the reapers, or make jelly toast (which I think is the worst possible outcome, who needs an avatar toaster).[/quote]

Anyone else like how that sounds (not the toaster but the whole concept).[/quote]
I didn't quite get it. What does Reaper Avatar mean ? Will you be controlling a Reaper, or will you implant Reaper material to a human (already done).

[quote]Gibb_Shepard wrote...

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]Gibb_Shepard wrote...

[quote]smudboy wrote...

[quote]Gibb_Shepard wrote...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...


Well, call them as you wish, but they are certainly not the 'good guys'. Again, their moral ideals don't really matter. It's about trusting them with the base.

Personally, I don't. If I had to only use a single argument to justify destroying the base, it would be that TIM openly admitted that he wouldn't  mind using it beyond the Reapers.

In conclusion, there are valid arguments for both sides, and noone is being 'stupid'.

[/quote]

This, the continual accusations that blowing up the base is logically unsound is simply not true.

There are many valid arguments on both sides.
[/quote]

Really?  Like the "Wah.  TIM" ones?  Yes.  Let's not get any advantages on our enemy because I care about politics, or some small group somehow dominating the galaxy whenever we can defeat the big bad enemy AI spacebots who kill life, forever, always.  Again.
[/quote]

Yes, the "Wah TIM" ones. I prefer to not let that arrogant, mental bastard **** up yet another experiment, and consequently harm the galaxy.

Christ you guys are condescending.
[/quote]
Proof of TIM harming the galaxy?  None.
Proof of TIM saving the galaxy?  Lots.

Your observations on his personality are irrelevant.[/quote]

Proof of TIM slimly avoiding failure of epic, galaxy harming proportions? Overlord and Grayson. You say Overlord was a success because it yielded information on how to control geth? Yeah, but if it weren't for shepard that thing would've beamed itself off world. And what happens if shepard never goes to help out down at Aite?
You say that that Grayson was under control until the Turians came knocking at the door? Maybe, but an intelligent man would consider all possible outcomes when dealing with an experiment this dangerous, TIM did not.


[/quote]
We are giving the base to him, the greatest weapon of all. As Gibb and Samara have mentioned 'TIM thinks that he has the wisdom to use the base. He does not.

[mosor]

General User wrote...


What general sends his soldiers into a known ambush without warning their CO? The kind who will be relieved of duty (at least he better start cooking his own food). 

Winston Churchill didn't warn coventry of an impending German bombardment because he wanted to protect the fact that they cracked enigma. He's usually considered a great war time leader. Shepard isn't always in the loop, that's clear. Is it justified? We really don't know all the factors TIM had to take in account to make that call. So that isn't clear. 

The locations and capabilities of Cerberus facilities is information Shepard does not need-to-know, strategies for stopping the Collectors is. “Expect resistance” IS need-to-know for anyone who may encounter it.  The fact that TIM is unable to correctly decide who needs to know what speaks none to highly of him as a leader.

Given that you don't have all the information at your disposal. It's not your call on what is need to know and what is a correct decision. 

What kind of high command only consults with their field commanders after the fact (as TIM does)? The kind that loses wars.

The kind of command that doesn't want captured officers revealing the complete strategy to the enemy. You're thinking regular ground pounder assault protocols, not special ops and intelligence operations.
 
 

TIM incompetence as a leader stems from the fact that he’s running a military campaign as an intelligence operation. 

The fact that this IS an intelligence/special ops operation should be quite obvious.

Modifié par mosor, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:05 .

[Ieldra]

Phaedon wrote...

Uh, why are we still discussing if Cerberus is evil or not ? We have been wasted 10 pages on this matter. They are evil. That's it. What we should debate about is if we can trust them with the base.

Of course we can't trust them not to misuse the base.

But: It doesn't matter!!! Because whatever it is they'll do with it, it is the lesser evil you risk. When you stand at the base and must decide, there are basically four scenarios you need to consider. In two of them we've made the correct decision. They are:
(1a) We don't need the base to win against the Reapers and we destroyed it.
(1b) We need the base to win against the Reapers and we kept it.

What's interesting is the ways we can make a wrong decision:
(2a) We need the base to win against the Reapers and we destroyed it.
(2b) We don't need the base to win against the Reapers and we kept it.

As anyone can infer, (2a) results in galactic extinction. The results of (2b) are unknown, but unless "Cerberus plus the base" results in a "Reapers win" scenario where "Cerberus without the base" wouldn't have, (2b) is the lesser evil by such a big margin that there really should be no question about what to do.

Thus, for the pragmatic reasoning for destroying the base, you have to argue that "Cerberus plus the base" will make the Reapers win, where "Cerberus without the base" wouldn't. To see how plausible that is, consider the logically equivalent statement "The Reapers need what Cerberus does with the base to win."

In the end, you have to weigh the probability of the scenario
(3a) We need the understanding gained by the base to win against the Reapers.
against
(3b) The Reapers need what Cerberus does with the base to win against galactic civilization.

Considering that the Reapers are already technologically superior, I think (3b) is far less plausible. And that's not even considering that keeping the base is a reversible choice - Shepard can keep a close eye on what happens on the base and reconsider the decision to keep it if Cerberus f***s up again. Destroying the base is irreversible.

Thus, if you trust TIM not to misuse the base or f*** things up completely or not is completely irrevelant unless you ascribe a significant probability to scenario (3b) *AND* assume the base can't destroyed fast enough at a later time. If you do - and I think especially in combination it's extremely unlikely - then the decision is a guessing game and arguing about it won't matter. In any other case, whatever TIM does with the base is the lesser evil, and keeping the base is the only strategically viable decision.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:12 .

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Shepard is not TIM's general staff. He is the one that goes in the field. Where he may be captured by the enemy. Hence, information is dispensed to Shepard strictly on "the need-to-know basis". As it ever been when he served active with the Alliance. This is even explored in the very beginning of ME1, before any shooting has a chance to start. The high command may consult the field commanders or they may not. It's up to them. You, as Sheaprd, are given an opportunity to express your discontent with this order of things (both in ME1 in that conversation with Anderson and in ME2 every time TIM "betrays" you), but ultimately you need to learn your place. Don't worry, it'll be you who gets the medal.

What general sends his soldiers into a known ambush without warning their CO? The kind who will be relieved of duty (at least he better start cooking his own food).

No, the one to win the battle. He first wins it, then sends soldiers into it. He may even so much as warn (through traitors and double agents) the enemies about the coming attack (like TIM does at Horizon). This may allow him to strike somewhere else without warning and insure a greater effect of the element of surprize there, or at the very least lead the enemy to believe that the they have the initiative, while in fact they don't.

General User wrote... 
The locations and capabilities of Cerberus facilities is information Shepard does not need-to-know, strategies for stopping the Collectors is. “Expect resistance” IS need-to-know for anyone who may encounter it.  The fact that TIM is unable to correctly decide who needs to know what speaks none to highly of him as a leader.

The fact that TIM is perfectly able to predict the battle outcome, determine when victory becomes inevitable and only then send Shepard in, speaks of him as a cunning C-in-C. He has Shepard as a known quantity and puts it through his calculations. Otherwise, if he was betting the battle outcome on Shepard's ability, it would be sort of gambling on TIM's part.

And telling Shepard "expect resistance" is just asking for a smart-ass reply: "I always expect resistance, TIM. Wasn't it why you brought me back from the dead?"

General User wrote... 
What kind of high command only consults with their field commanders after the fact (as TIM does)? The kind that loses wars.

You know why high command don't like to consult with field commanders and try to avoid it as much as possible? Because they don't run a freaking democracy in the army! A colonel would never say "What's your opinion of this, major?". Instead he'll say: "Give me a goddamn sitrep ASAP, major!" That's much worse when the former comes from the "high command" and the latter from the "field". The field commanders don't like the high command much, but duty is duty.

 

General User wrote...
TIM incompetence as a leader stems from the fact that he’s running a military campaign as an intelligence operation.

The fact that you oppose a millitary campaign to an intelligence operation is pretty telling. Where do you put guerilla warfare in this dichotomy? Have you heard the maxim "War is continuation of politics by other means"?

General User wrote...
He’s centralizing decision making, withholding information, jockeying for advantage. He should be consulting with his subordinates, disseminating information (including “suspicions”), and when necessary forsaking the wider goals of Cerberus for the sake of defeating the Reapers. 

He does all this.

General User wrote...
Whether it's out of malice or pure incompetence, the fact remains; TIM should not be a decision maker.

The fact remains, you have a very narrow view of what decision making should be.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:29 .

[General User]

mosor wrote...

Winston Churchill didn't warn coventry of an impending German bombardment because he wanted to protect the fact that they cracked enigma. He's usually considered a great war time leader. Shepard isn't always in the loop, that's clear. Is it justified? We really don't know all the factors TIM had to take in account to make that call. So that isn't clear. 

Winston Churchill was a political leader, and Coventry was a civilian target. The consequences of warning Coventry about the bombers could have been disastrous with no upside (besides saving lives, no strategic upside I should say), the consequences of warning/consulting Shepard about either Horizon or the CS could only have ANY negative consequences if Shepard herself was dangerously incompetent. The situations are not analogous.
 
As far as WWII goes (which is only so far to begin with), sending a ship to sea when you suspect there are u-boats in the area without telling the captain beforehand is a much better analogy, to my knowledge nothing like this ever happened. The area would be scouted by trained professionals, fully cognizant of the potential danger.

Given that you don't have all the information at your disposal. It's not your call on what is need to know and what is a correct decision. 

Truth, this is how the military handles sensitive information. And it is the responsibility of the senior officer (or “general” if you prefer), TIM in this case, to foster a command climate where that incredible level of trust is possible. The fact that TIM fails to do this is further evidence of his unsuitability for the role he has appointed himself to.

The kind of command that doesn't want captured officers revealing the complete strategy to the enemy. You're thinking regular ground pounder assault protocols, not special ops and intelligence operations.


The fact that this IS an intelligence/special ops operation should be quite obvious.

Which is it? Intelligence or special ops? Special ops are military operations, even if they often, though far from always and not even in this case, have intelligence objectives (individual missions may have intelligence objectives, but the objective of the campaign as a whole, “stop the Collectors” is a military one).

[Ieldra]

@General User:

Do you notice that all the arguments you've voiced on this page - in and out of quotes - don't change the risk calculation one bit? TIM's personality and whether you trust him is irrelevant unless you assume he'll tip the balance in favor of the Reapers if he gets the base.

[Zulu_DFA]

General User wrote...
As far as WWII goes (which is only so far to begin with),

It goes farther than the today's wars the US wage as you watch it on CNN. At least until you identify "our" side in ME with the "enemy" side of today's wars. That is - the technologically inferior side.

 

General User wrote...
sending a ship to sea when you suspect there are u-boats in the area without telling the captain beforehand

Equipping  the ship with depth charges should be enough for the captain to be ready for u-boats.

General User wrote...

Given that you don't have all the information at your disposal. It's not your call on what is need to know and what is a correct decision. 

Truth, this is how the military handles sensitive information. And it is the responsibility of the senior officer (or “general” if you prefer), TIM in this case, to foster a command climate where that incredible level of trust is possible.

This is laughable. Wishful thinking. Putting on the uniform and taking an oath is considered enough of trust climate. Especially among officers (as opposed to "grunts"). Everything else may be considered "inappropriate fraternization".

One can't deny, that the actual results greatly impact the command's reputation among subordinates and even affect their performance regardless of their loyalty to the flag. But as far as ME2's story goes, you can't blame TIM for any actual defeat. Of course, it doesn't occur to you that TIM has anything to do with "Shepard's" victories.

General User wrote...
The fact that TIM fails to do this is further evidence of his unsuitability for the role he has appointed himself to.

The fact, that you put so much emphasis on this is evidence of your unsuitability for the role of Commander Shepard.

General User wrote...

The kind of command that doesn't want captured officers revealing the complete strategy to the enemy. You're thinking regular ground pounder assault protocols, not special ops and intelligence operations.

The fact that this IS an intelligence/special ops operation should be quite obvious.

Which is it? Intelligence or special ops? Special ops are military operations, even if they often, though far from always and not even in this case, have intelligence objectives (individual missions may have intelligence objectives, but the objective of the campaign as a whole, “stop the Collectors” is a military one).

Can't you see for yourself, that you have yet to finish sorting these things out?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Nightwriter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@General User:
Do you notice that all the arguments you've voiced on this page - in and out of quotes - don't change the risk calculation one bit? TIM's personality and whether you trust him is irrelevant unless you assume he'll tip the balance in favor of the Reapers if he gets the base.

This was exactly my worry.

It bothered me that the enemy was able to infect EDI with that virus. She scrubbed the IFF, and yet this virus still went undetected. I kept thinking, what if they were able to do that because EDI is made from Reaper tech, and they used that to their advantage?

TIM seems like he'd use the Reaper tech on a huge scale, and much less safely.

[General User]

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...

@General User:
Do you notice that all the arguments you've voiced on this page - in and out of quotes - don't change the risk calculation one bit? TIM's personality and whether you trust him is irrelevant unless you assume he'll tip the balance in favor of the Reapers if he gets the base.[/quote]

[/quote]


Indeed, such is the nature of going off topic I’m afraid, feel free to redirect. I would personally be most interested to read an analysis/breakdown of the Reaper threat along how and why the CB is necessary to overcome it, and  proposed strategies for doing so. 
 
I’d only make the point that the faith you have in a person, whether in their abilities or them as an individual, is far from irrelevant when deciding whether or not to trust them with something as undeniably important of the CB. 

Modifié par General User, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:18 .

[Nightwriter]

Am I the only one who feels it's pointless to look at this as realistically as some participants in this topic do?

It's useless, because in the real world paragon options wouldn't even exist. There would be no "paragon". Most paragon outcomes achieve near-perfect endings that are simply impossible in real life. Takes all the enjoyment of choice out of it.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nightwriter wrote...

Am I the only one who feels it's pointless to look at this as realistically as some participants in this topic do?

It's useless, because in the real world paragon options wouldn't even exist. There would be no "paragon". Most paragon outcomes achieve near-perfect endings that are simply impossible in real life. Takes all the enjoyment of choice out of it.

Ain't that the reason behind Sheploo being renegade?

A paragon Shepard would've never made it past PFC in the marines, let alone special forces, and would be called names all his short-lived career.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:40 .

[General User]

Nightwriter wrote...

Am I the only one who feels it's pointless to look at this as realistically as some participants in this topic do?

It's useless, because in the real world paragon options wouldn't even exist. There would be no "paragon". Most paragon outcomes achieve near-perfect endings that are simply impossible in real life. Takes all the enjoyment of choice out of it.

Of course it’s pointless! It’s a video game! It’s fun! The pointlessness is the point!

[Barquiel]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ain't that the reason behind Sheploo being renegade?

A paragon Shepard would've never made it past PFC in the marines, let alone special forces, and would be called names all his short-lived career.

...and renegade Shepard would face court martial;)

[Fixers0]

This discussion seems to be unnecessary, now i'm not saying that it isn't interesting to discuss about the biggest decision we have in Mass Effect 2 but more about how and why, In that order.



The most important thing is how, we talk about it, we each have our opinion and we are happy to share that with the rest of the community, a little to happy i must say.

This thread started with a question about keeping or destroying the collecter base, after a few pages the discussion had been expaned to all kinds of other questions such as:

1.Can we trust TIM a base with Reaper tech?

2.Isn't such base to dangerous to use?

3.Does The base even contain such tech?



And so on, now this is in fact very good for the discussion , as all these points are relevant for you in making the desicion to save or destroy the base, however since we are all sharing our opinion in this thread, the problem that comes with this we are so fiercely defending our opinion and trying to change the one of others, that it's almost laughable if you see this my way.



Leading to the why i mentioned earlier, why are we making such a discussion of this, it's good to share our opinon with other.

But this goes on to the extend of constant quote arguments where people quote someone else's arguments and give counter arguments waiting until he does the same and so on.



If we know Bioware, both keeping and destroying the base are equal to eachother in the same way as saving the Council or letting them die, None of the choices is strictly superior to the other choice and therefore the progress of Mass effect 3 might be different, but regardless of our choice in Mass effect 2 our chances to complete mission in Mass effect 3 in a good way (defeat the Reapers) is equal.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I guess I don't see the point of arguing the merits of keeping the base or not.

Because it'll just be marginalized to a ridiculous degree.

Kind of like the whole "kill the Council or not kill the Council"

[Nightwriter]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Am I the only one who feels it's pointless to look at this as realistically as some participants in this topic do?

It's useless, because in the real world paragon options wouldn't even exist. There would be no "paragon". Most paragon outcomes achieve near-perfect endings that are simply impossible in real life. Takes all the enjoyment of choice out of it.

Ain't that the reason behind Sheploo being renegade?

A paragon Shepard would've never made it past PFC in the marines, let alone special forces, and would be called names all his short-lived career.

And renegade Shepard would never have been able to command the loyalty of his troops, or get into bed with Liara despite jerkish comments, or become a Spectre candidate despite recklessness and a totally volatile nature.

I think this is the point. The game bends reality. That's what makes paragon decisions - and some renegade decisions - possible at all.

[Zulu_DFA]

Barquiel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ain't that the reason behind Sheploo being renegade?

A paragon Shepard would've never made it past PFC in the marines, let alone special forces, and would be called names all his short-lived career.

...and renegade Shepard would face court martial;)

I think all Shepards will face court martial in ME3.

Nightwriter wrote...
And renegade Shepard would never have been able to command the loyalty of his troops, or get into bed with Liara despite jerkish comments, or become a Spectre candidate despite recklessness and a totally volatile nature.

Why not? Aleksander, Caesar, CharleMagne, Cromwell, Napoleon, Stalin were all "renegades", and commanded unqestioning loyalty of their troops.

As for Liara, who needs her, once you conquer the Galaxy?

Nightwriter wrote...
I think this is the point. The game bends reality. That's what makes paragon decisions - and some renegade decisions - possible at all.

Still, much more so the paragon ones. Which is the reason for this thread. The renegade players are really bemused, how it's even possible to destroy the Base.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:27 .

[Markinator_123]

Barquiel wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ain't that the reason behind Sheploo being renegade?

A paragon Shepard would've never made it past PFC in the marines, let alone special forces, and would be called names all his short-lived career.

...and renegade Shepard would face court martial;)

Blowing up enemy technology that could be of use like Shepard does in the paragon ending would get you court martialed in real life.

[Barquiel]

Markinator_123 wrote...


Blowing up enemy technology that could be of use like Shepard does in the paragon ending would get you court martialed in real life.

Now that would be an interesting trial.

Shepard is accused of not giving technology to space terrorists.

[General User]

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

No, the one to win the battle. He first wins it, then sends soldiers into it. He may even so much as warn (through traitors and double agents) the enemies about the coming attack (like TIM does at Horizon). This may allow him to strike somewhere else without warning and insure a greater effect of the element of surprize there, or at the very least lead the enemy to believe that the they have the initiative, while in fact they don't.

[/quote]


TIM believes Shepard to be a potential traitor or double agent, or that such are on the Normandy? That’s a HUGE can of worms on a lot of levels! 

TIM’s a brilliant strategist, I’ll give him that, and as I’ve said, he may be the best intel man in the galaxy. But such qualities do not a leader make. In the area of leadership TIM is found wanting, for many reasons, not the least of which his commitment is less total and his understanding of the military is limited.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

The fact that TIM is perfectly able to predict the battle outcome, determine when victory becomes inevitable and only then send Shepard in, speaks of him as a cunning C-in-C. He has Shepard as a known quantity and puts it through his calculations. Otherwise, if he was betting the battle outcome on Shepard's ability, it would be sort of gambling on TIM's part.

And telling Shepard "expect resistance" is just asking for a smart-ass reply: "I always expect resistance, TIM. Wasn't it why you brought me back from the dead?"

[/quote]

Victory is never inevitable.  Risks must always be managed, precautions always taken, prudence always observed, vigilence never relaxed.  TIM does not do this, or at least chooses the wrong risks to manage etc..  He sends Shepard into situations often without important info.


Nature of Shepards reply notwithstanding (I agree about Shepards smart-assiness btw), TIM is still obligated to give the warning.
[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

You know why high command don't like to consult with field commanders and try to avoid it as much as possible? Because they don't run a freaking democracy in the army! A colonel would never say "What's your opinion of this, major?". Instead he'll say: "Give me a goddamn sitrep ASAP, major!" That's much worse when the former comes from the "high command" and the latter from the "field". The field commanders don't like the high command much, but duty is duty.

[/quote]


Colonels ask majors of their opinions all the time. Generals ask junior officers for their opinions all the time. Officers ask NCOs for their opinions on virtually everything (admittedly this mainly applies to Western-model militaries). A good CO will listen to many opinions before making an important decison. 

Central commands defer to commanders in the field as a matter of course, for day to day matters anyway, just as field commanders look to central to provide strategic guidance and logistical support. It's all a mutally supportive web.  As I’ve said, military decision making is highly collaborative.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

The fact that you oppose a millitary campaign to an intelligence operation is pretty telling. Where do you put guerilla warfare in this dichotomy? Have you heard the maxim "War is continuation of politics by other means"?

[/quote]



I'm not sure I understand: “[t]he fact that you oppose a military campaign to an intelligence operation is pretty telling”? I’m supporting a military approach to the Collector/Reaper threat!  I simply seek to understand the political angles, particularly in regards to the CB, which is a potential boon or bane in many fields depending on how it is used.
War is not a dichotomy, it's a “multi-chotomy” even an “omni-chotomy.”  Intelligence, combat, and politics are all separate fields of endeavor each with their own rules, and subject-matter experts. In warfare, a good leader can bring together these, and many other diverse fields to achieve victory. This is a quality TIM, for whatever reason, lacks, as evidenced by how he runs Cerberus, ie as a black-ops group.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...


He does all this.

[/quote]

That's really the problem isn't it, he does it all, he should not be doing the first bit, or at least he lacks the wisdom to know when to do it.  And he does everything to suit his own agenda, this only works so long as his agenda is inline with Shepards and vice versa. 


[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

The fact remains, you have a very narrow view of what decision making should be.

[/quote]

Perhaps, what other angles should I consider?

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

It goes farther than the today's wars the US wage as you watch it on CNN. At least until you identify "our" side in ME with the "enemy" side of today's wars. That is - the technologically inferior side.

[/quote]

I don't believe any real conflict, past or present is a very good analogy to the Collector/Reaper business.  In certain very select cases, elements of RW conflicts may be.  As a rule I try to avoid such analogies, I meet with varying degrees of sucess.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

Equipping  the ship with depth charges should be enough for the captain to be ready for u-boats.

[/quote]

A "heads up" would be nice too, I'm just sayin'...

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

This is laughable. Wishful thinking. Putting on the uniform and taking an oath is considered enough of trust climate. Especially among officers (as opposed to "grunts"). Everything else may be considered "inappropriate fraternization".

One can't deny, that the actual results greatly impact the command's reputation among subordinates and even affect their performance regardless of their loyalty to the flag. But as far as ME2's story goes, you can't blame TIM for any actual defeat. Of course, it doesn't occur to you that TIM has anything to do with "Shepard's" victories.

[/quote]


TIM does not wear a uniform, his past is “mysterious” (I suppose that’s a diplomatic way of putting it). As such the burden of creating a superior command climate is increased. It’s a burden he was unable to bear.


I give TIM credit for the various victories, in this very post (and others) I call him the best intel man in the galaxy!  I called Horizon and the CS, "conceptually brilliant" and "potential masterstrokes!"  But the fact that those ops worked out in the end does not eliminate the need to redress the flaws in their planning, all of which originated with TIM.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...


The fact, that you put so much emphasis on this is evidence of your unsuitability for the role of Commander Shepard.

[/quote]

Heyyy, that's hurtful! I paid my bill!  Gee-wilikers!    Kidding aside: Let’s attack ideas (and fictional characters ), not each other.


[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

Can't you see for yourself, that you have yet to finish sorting these things out?

[/quote]


Of course I haven’t finished sorting it out! The only reason I come on these forums is to discuss Mass Effect with people who are every bit the fan that I am!

Modifié par General User, 10 octobre 2010 - 08:59 .

[Phaedon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Uh, why are we still discussing if Cerberus is evil or not ? We have been wasted 10 pages on this matter. They are evil. That's it. What we should debate about is if we can trust them with the base.

Of course we can't trust them not to misuse the base.

But: It doesn't matter!!! Because whatever it is they'll do with it, it is the lesser evil you risk. When you stand at the base and must decide, there are basically four scenarios you need to consider. In two of them we've made the correct decision. They are:
(1a) We don't need the base to win against the Reapers and we destroyed it.
(1b) We need the base to win against the Reapers and we kept it.

What's interesting is the ways we can make a wrong decision:
(2a) We need the base to win against the Reapers and we destroyed it.
(2b) We don't need the base to win against the Reapers and we kept it.

As anyone can infer, (2a) results in galactic extinction. The results of (2b) are unknown, but unless "Cerberus plus the base" results in a "Reapers win" scenario where "Cerberus without the base" wouldn't have, (2b) is the lesser evil by such a big margin that there really should be no question about what to do.

Thus, for the pragmatic reasoning for destroying the base, you have to argue that "Cerberus plus the base" will make the Reapers win, where "Cerberus without the base" wouldn't. To see how plausible that is, consider the logically equivalent statement "The Reapers need what Cerberus does with the base to win."

In the end, you have to weigh the probability of the scenario
(3a) We need the understanding gained by the base to win against the Reapers.
against
(3b) The Reapers need what Cerberus does with the base to win against galactic civilization.

Considering that the Reapers are already technologically superior, I think (3b) is far less plausible. And that's not even considering that keeping the base is a reversible choice - Shepard can keep a close eye on what happens on the base and reconsider the decision to keep it if Cerberus f***s up again. Destroying the base is irreversible.

Thus, if you trust TIM not to misuse the base or f*** things up completely or not is completely irrevelant unless you ascribe a significant probability to scenario (3b) *AND* assume the base can't destroyed fast enough at a later time. If you do - and I think especially in combination it's extremely unlikely - then the decision is a guessing game and arguing about it won't matter. In any other case, whatever TIM does with the base is the lesser evil, and keeping the base is the only strategically viable decision.

So, are you suggesting that destroying the base will by default make us lose in ME3 ? Even if we are talking about an IC approach, that is highly unlikely. I still haven't heard of any specific ways the CB can be vital for ME3. 

[Nightwriter]

Blowing up that silly base that doesn't exist at the galactic core no one can get to by passing through the relay no one can come out of located in the Terminus Systems no one can enter?

Pshaw. Naw, no court martial for Shepard for that. Assuming Spectres can be court martialed. Assuming Shepard still is a Spectre.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Why not? Aleksander, Caesar, CharleMagne, Cromwell, Napoleon, Stalin were all "renegades", and commanded unqestioning loyalty of their troops.

Ah, but renegade Shepard does not behave like Caesar, or Stalin, or CharleMagne, or Napoleon.

Renegade Shepard is an unfeeling jerk toward his team. Yet the ME2 squad will follow him to suicide? So much for realism.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

As for Liara, who needs her, once you conquer the Galaxy?

It's an example of implausible renegade outcomes. You can be a jerk to Liara but she'll still romance you.

And yeah, why would we need the new Shadow Broker? That can't be useful.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Still, much more so the paragon ones. Which is the reason for this thread. The renegade players are really bemused, how it's even possible to destroy the Base.

We are bemused by your bemusement. Though we are happy videogames serve you as an effective means of feeling superior.

What I can't get my head around? How you can preach consequentialism when you know perfectly well the consequences will not be what you say they will be. Which makes consequentialism a meaningless argument.

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I think all Shepards will face court martial in ME3.

Damn, I hope so, I'll go: ah yes, "court martials".

Modifié par Nightwriter, 10 octobre 2010 - 09:00 .

[Purge the heathens]

There's actually a simple solution to the entire problem. All you need to do is assume that Shepard is prescient and knows all possible futures, but is railroaded into acting as if s/he didn't. This way you can destroy or keep the base at your leisure because "your" Shepard knows that it will lead to the future s/he prefers and is fully aware of all consequences, even though we, the players, don't yet know what effects the decision will have in ME3.

Issues will only arise if one choice bites you in the ass while the other one doesn't and prescient Shepard chose the former even though s/he knew what would happen.

Modifié par Purge the heathens, 10 octobre 2010 - 09:11 .

[Phaedon]

Why not? Aleksander, Caesar, CharleMagne, Cromwell, Napoleon, Stalin were all "renegades", and commanded unqestioning loyalty of their troops.

Well, I wouldn't say that Alexander was a renegade, but he definitely didn't command unquestioning loyalty of his troops.

[Barquiel]

Nightwriter wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I think all Shepards will face court martial in ME3.

Damn, I hope so, I'll go: ah yes, "court martials".

I hope so too. I loved the trial in NWN2!