2146 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

There is no way the council will send in their fleet if they still don't even believe in the reaper threat, same for the Alliance. And do you really think if shepard goes up to the council and says "I'm not with Cerberus anymore, trust me" they will believe him?

You totally just missed his point. In this scenario the Reapers aren't even needed as a credible threat. If someone was to say to the Council/Alliance "Hey guys, you know that Cerberus group who you all hate? Yeah, they have their hands on some pimptastic new technology... but you'll have to be careful getting there." They don't even have to have Shephard tell it, they could just get a credible tip off (hell, perhaps from the Shadow Broker?)

Technology is useful, even to the Council, if samples could be provided (and yes, Shephard has some samples without even going back to the base) it could galvanise the Council to take some options.

Having said that, the CB being where it is makes it diplomatically impossible for the Council to reach via diplomatic means, which is why you couldn't give it to them in the first place even if you wanted too.

I'm just saying that assuming you will be able to take the base off TIM as an option in ME3 if he completely screws it up is...............an assumption, a large assumption. So in your future arguments against base destroyers, don't use the "We can destroy it later on" point, as it is not anywhere near a fact.

The Normandy SR-2 is a stealth frigate. You would be able to sneak back onto the base and set it to overload... again. You can strike at any time as well because you now have the Reaper IFF codes. It is not an insurmountable problem at all.

[Ieldra]

@Gibb-Shepard:
And you base your argument on the assumption that the datapad is useless and thus nobody will believe me.

We have no facts, Gibb_Shepard. Neither side has. All our arguments are based on risk evaluation and plausible scenarios. For instance, I discount the hypothesis that we will be able to defeat the Reapers without a technological advance as implausible based on what we know at the end of ME2 (metagaming excluded). If you accept the hypothesis that we'll need that technological advance, it becomes almost impossible to logically argue for destroying the base.

Perhaps it has also escaped you that my earlier risk evaluation didn't make any assumptions, but simply pointed out which risk was to be avoided and which other risk is bearable.

BTW, the datapad shows a Reaper. That's rather suggestive of containing information about the Reapers, isn't it?

You know, I'm growing really tired of repeating myself. You people don't seem to grasp the fact that galaxy-wide extinction is as close to the "ultimate evil" you can get and still be believable in a universe like ME's, that galactic civilization is grasping at straws for a means of survival, and that in the light of too little knowledge, you cannot afford to close off any particular option that you might need. That Cerberus is evil is insignificant, of no importance at all, since one of the things we do know from Retribution is that TIM doesn't work for the Reapers. Really, I don't care one whit if TIM is trustworthy as long as he works against the Reapers. Ask me again after they've been defeated and I'll give you a different answer. The only risk I must consider is "is Cerberus incompetent enough to make the Reapers win inadvertently". Given that the Reapers already have the advantage, I consider this implausible - and my "destroy it later" scenario is contingent on that implausible scenario happening. Just an added option to illustrate that keeping the base leaves options we need open, where destroying it closes all other options irreversibly. Which we can't afford to do.

Edit:
Consider Arijharn's post above (thanks, Arijharn!) also part of my answer.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 octobre 2010 - 11:28 .

[Inverness Moon]

General User wrote...

I agree, even for organics, were I the “lord-protector” of one of Shepards organic allies who had signed on to fight the Reapers I’d be more than a little put out if she started asking for soldiers to re-take the CB. Not that I wouldn’t provide them (once), but it would do no small amount of harm to any alliance in general.

Anyone who is an ally of Shepard and understands the magnitude of the reaper threat would understand that giving the base to Cerberus was a necessary risk.

Besides, Shepard could just hand the base to the ally he uses to retake it.

[General User]

Inverness Moon wrote...

General User wrote...

I agree, even for organics, were I the “lord-protector” of one of Shepards organic allies who had signed on to fight the Reapers I’d be more than a little put out if she started asking for soldiers to re-take the CB. Not that I wouldn’t provide them (once), but it would do no small amount of harm to any alliance in general.

Anyone who is an ally of Shepard and understands the magnitude of the reaper threat would understand that giving the base to Cerberus was a necessary risk.

Besides, Shepard could just hand the base to the ally he uses to retake it.

There’s a certain amount of natural resentment that is generated every time someone feels they are cleaning up the mess of another. I’ll I’m saying is having to contribute forces to retake the CB, should it ever prove necessary in the first place, would be a major setback on a lot of levels for any alliance.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You know, I'm growing really tired of repeating myself. You people don't seem to grasp the fact that galaxy-wide extinction is as close to the "ultimate evil" you can get and still be believable in a universe like ME's, that galactic civilization is grasping at straws for a means of survival, and that in the light of too little knowledge, you cannot afford to close off any particular option that you might need. That Cerberus is evil is insignificant, of no importance at all, since one of the things we do know from Retribution is that TIM doesn't work for the Reapers. Really, I don't care one whit if TIM is trustworthy as long as he works against the Reapers. Ask me again after they've been defeated and I'll give you a different answer. The only risk I must consider is "is Cerberus incompetent enough to make the Reapers win inadvertently". Given that the Reapers already have the advantage, I consider this implausible - and my "destroy it later" scenario is contingent on that implausible scenario happening. Just an added option to illustrate that keeping the base leaves options we need open, where destroying it closes all other options irreversibly. Which we can't afford to do.

Edit:
Consider Arijharn's post above (thanks, Arijharn!) also part of my answer.

Oh poor you.

I don't care about your opinions on whether the base should be kept or not, as that crap has been discussed a ridiculous amount of times already.

I'm here to simply point out that being able to destroy the base later on is a mighty assumption, and is not a valid point when discussing the now redundant argument of whether or not to keep the base.

Arijharn wrote...

You totally just missed his point. In this scenario the Reapers aren't even needed as a credible threat. If someone was to say to the Council/Alliance "Hey guys, you know that Cerberus group who you all hate? Yeah, they have their hands on some pimptastic new technology... but you'll have to be careful getting there." They don't even have to have Shephard tell it, they could just get a credible tip off (hell, perhaps from the Shadow Broker?)

Technology is useful, even to the Council, if samples could be provided (and yes, Shephard has some samples without even going back to the base) it could galvanise the Council to take some options.

Having said that, the CB being where it is makes it diplomatically impossible for the Council to reach via diplomatic means, which is why you couldn't give it to them in the first place even if you wanted too.

You mean the council sending the Citadel fleet into the Terminus Systems, risking a war, just because they got an anonymous tip that Cerberus is up to no good? Yes, logical....../sarcasm

[Jabarai]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Jabarai wrote...
Yes, in fanfiction that is possible. 

Not just in fanfiction...

I think the real question we should be debating over are the ones presented in the game. Now, we'll just going to have to assume that at that certain point in time Shepard couldn't come up with better options than to blow up the base or leave it to the Cerberus. That is fine by me.

However, if Shepard lets Cerberus take over the base, the potential decisions will be presented in the next game. If Shepard second guesses his/her decision and chooses to destroy the base by force, we're left guessing how large a portion of its firepower and technology Cerberus has poured into the SR-2 Normandy and its crew. And what kind of help would be available to Shepard. At this point the speculations are pure fanfiction, to me.

PS: Good note on how valuable the scrap yard would be to the Quarians, by the way!

[smudboy]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Oh poor you.

I don't care about your opinions on whether the base should be kept or not, as that crap has been discussed a ridiculous amount of times already.

I'm here to simply point out that being able to destroy the base later on is a mighty assumption, and is not a valid point when discussing the now redundant argument of whether or not to keep the base.

*Chooses to destroy the base*

*Notices how the base is destroyed*

*Does not know where you're coming from.*

[Inverness Moon]

General User wrote...

There’s a certain amount of natural resentment that is generated every time someone feels they are cleaning up the mess of another. I’ll I’m saying is having to contribute forces to retake the CB, should it ever prove necessary in the first place, would be a major setback on a lot of levels for any alliance.

The collector base itself would most likely benefit the alliance more than having to take it back from Cerberus would hurt it.

Though, as I said before, I don't think Shepard is incapable of retaking it on his own in the first place.

[Ieldra]

So, in the end the validity of the decision to destroy the base rests on one or more of the following hypotheses:

(1) We can be 100% sure we won't need the Collector base to defeat the Reapers.
(2) There is a significant chance Cerberus's incompetence in using the base will give the Reapers a decisive advantage, and
(2a) Once there is evidence that Cerberus is incapable of dealing with the base, it's extremely unlikely that outcome (2) can be avoided through any action by Shepard and his allies.

I don't think we need to seriously consider (1) if we rule out metagaming. We can't rule out (2) 100%, though I'd consider it unlikely, but it's validity rest on (2a), which I find not at all plausible.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 octobre 2010 - 01:48 .

[Xilizhra]

Yes, but to assume 2a isn't true, we have to assume that Shepard will have time to deal with Cerberus while the Reapers are showing up.



I also have a feeling that the "destroy the base" outcome in ME3 will involve in-game knowledge that Shepard has there and would logically have had in ME2 as well, but we weren't privy to it for whatever reason; thus, it's possible that we can only make a valid decision after ME3 comes out.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
Yes, but to assume 2a isn't true, we have to assume that Shepard will have time to deal with Cerberus while the Reapers are showing up.

True...but does the low probability that Cerberus does a blunder that extreme in the first place, combined with the probability Shepard won't be able to do anything against it, justify destroying the base? I still maintain any serious strategist would bend over backwards to get the base into his hands. If I were a Paragon Shepard with a Paragon reputation, I'd plan it that way: give the base to TIM and then use my allies (who know my reputation) to capture it from him as a preventive measure.

I also have a feeling that the "destroy the base" outcome in ME3 will involve in-game knowledge that Shepard has there and would logically have had in ME2 as well, but we weren't privy to it for whatever reason; thus, it's possible that we can only make a valid decision after ME3 comes out.

You think it's something Shepard would logically know and we can't see at this time? We've been pretty much over everything here, so if that's true, it would have to be something very unexpected. Anyway, I'm sure should things turn out that way, a debate would break out over whether Shepard would logically have had that knowledge at the time of the decision.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 octobre 2010 - 03:24 .

[TMA LIVE]

smudboy wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Oh poor you.

I don't care about your opinions on whether the base should be kept or not, as that crap has been discussed a ridiculous amount of times already.

I'm here to simply point out that being able to destroy the base later on is a mighty assumption, and is not a valid point when discussing the now redundant argument of whether or not to keep the base.

*Chooses to destroy the base*

*Notices how the base is destroyed*

*Does not know where you're coming from.*

I think he means saving the base with the idea that you'll destroy it later if TIM starts acting like a bad boy. Which I doubt is possible. Once you give it to TIM, it's his to use. Not yours.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 octobre 2010 - 04:27 .

[smudboy]

TMA LIVE wrote...

I think he means saving the base with the idea that you'll destroy it later if TIM starts acting like a bad boy. Which I doubt is possible. Once you give it to TIM, it's his to use. Not yours.

What would destroying the base do if TIM is already a bad boy?  That implies something was learned, like a new technology, and is now applied.

If trouble did occur on the base, and all other options were exhausted, I can see TIM, or Shepard, destroying it in any number of scenarios and ways.

[TMA LIVE]

smudboy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

I think he means saving the base with the idea that you'll destroy it later if TIM starts acting like a bad boy. Which I doubt is possible. Once you give it to TIM, it's his to use. Not yours.

What would destroying the base do if TIM is already a bad boy?  That implies something was learned, like a new technology, and is now applied.

If trouble did occur on the base, and all other options were exhausted, I can see TIM, or Shepard, destroying it in any number of scenarios and ways.

Let me put it this way. TIM uses the base to, say, build something which he plans to use to destroy or indoctrinate the Turian homeworld (or something, just roll with it). He has his reasons. You don't like it. You tell him to not do it, and he says "Too bad. This is my base."

[smudboy]

TMA LIVE wrote...

smudboy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

I think he means saving the base with the idea that you'll destroy it later if TIM starts acting like a bad boy. Which I doubt is possible. Once you give it to TIM, it's his to use. Not yours.

What would destroying the base do if TIM is already a bad boy?  That implies something was learned, like a new technology, and is now applied.

If trouble did occur on the base, and all other options were exhausted, I can see TIM, or Shepard, destroying it in any number of scenarios and ways.

Let me put it this way. TIM uses the base to, say, build something which he plans to use to destroy or indoctrinate the Turian homeworld (or something, just roll with it). He has his reasons. You don't like it. You tell him to not do it, and he says "Too bad. This is my base."

Oh we're playing what if.

Shepard gets in the SR2.  Shepard goes to the Galactic Core through the Omega-4 relay.  Shepard brings Joker and EDI along with them.  They both destroy all defenses either via superior tactics, firepower or cyberwarfare means.  They fire up the Thanix Cannon, and point it at the rather large cylindrical object called the Collector Base.

Problem solved.

[TMA LIVE]

smudboy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

smudboy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

I think he means saving the base with the idea that you'll destroy it later if TIM starts acting like a bad boy. Which I doubt is possible. Once you give it to TIM, it's his to use. Not yours.

What would destroying the base do if TIM is already a bad boy?  That implies something was learned, like a new technology, and is now applied.

If trouble did occur on the base, and all other options were exhausted, I can see TIM, or Shepard, destroying it in any number of scenarios and ways.

Let me put it this way. TIM uses the base to, say, build something which he plans to use to destroy or indoctrinate the Turian homeworld (or something, just roll with it). He has his reasons. You don't like it. You tell him to not do it, and he says "Too bad. This is my base."

Oh we're playing what if.

Shepard gets in the SR2.  Shepard goes to the Galactic Core through the Omega-4 relay.  Shepard brings Joker and EDI along with them.  They both destroy all defenses either via superior tactics, firepower or cyberwarfare means.  They fire up the Thanix Cannon, and point it at the rather large cylindrical object called the Collector Base.

Problem solved.

I hate it how it'll be that simple. Well, Shepard's already defeating private armies with just three people. Why not?

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 octobre 2010 - 04:49 .

[Phaedon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
I thought that we had finally agreed that they were not good... 

I guess we were accepting that for the sake of the argument, because it doesn't really matter if they are or not, as long as they aren't bad enough to work for the Reapers - who are, btw, beyond that kind of classification. It's easier than having to say "the undesirable aspects of Cerberus" every time you start talking. "How evil is Cerberus?" is a topic for a separate thread, here it's only important insofar it influences the Collector base decision, so we might as well assume they are very bad, for it gives the arguments for keeping the base even more weight.

I was actually referring to a pretty long argument, but anyway. I do agree that it shouldn't be a major factor when making the decision, but it does matter in a way.

It's one thing to decide whether you should keep it for research (taking the risk that a politician/race might get greedy) or destroy it and another to decide whether you should give the base to TIM (a morally let's say...at least ambigous character, if not malevolent/evil/bad/whatever) or keep it for research.

I believe that it will work this way: You are going to get bit on the ass in ME3, both for saving and destroying the base. The consequences of one action might be more grave than the other, but there will be consequences nevertheless. I believe that making the decision is based on which risk one thinks is greater.

Personally, I know that the Base will have something of value, but out of the possibilites suggested here, I don't consider any of these priiizes worth the risk.

[Phaedon]

Oh we're playing what if.

Shepard gets in the SR2. Shepard goes to the Galactic Core through the Omega-4 relay. Shepard brings Joker and EDI along with them. They both destroy all defenses either via superior tactics, firepower or cyberwarfare means. They fire up the Thanix Cannon, and point it at the rather large cylindrical object called the Collector Base.

Problem solved.

Btw, the Thanix Cannon would barely scratch the base. It's actually fires something similar to MA projectiles that do the same damage as a cruiser cannon (Medium/Heavy MA projectiles ?).

Modifié par Phaedon, 16 octobre 2010 - 08:03 .

[TMA LIVE]

smudboy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

I think he means saving the base with the idea that you'll destroy it later if TIM starts acting like a bad boy. Which I doubt is possible. Once you give it to TIM, it's his to use. Not yours.

What would destroying the base do if TIM is already a bad boy?  That implies something was learned, like a new technology, and is now applied.

If trouble did occur on the base, and all other options were exhausted, I can see TIM, or Shepard, destroying it in any number of scenarios and ways.

But anyways, even if you destroyed the base later, all you're doing is setting TIM back by, I don't know, 10 years or less. Whatever tech and data he got from the base, he already got. You're just destroying his ability to "currently" make a reaper, and whatever tech he didn't take with him. But if he's smart, he would have already grabbed whatever data and tech he could, and could rebuild another base years later based off that, or something similar. I mean, he already has technology to turn people into a husk from a base that got blown up in the galactic core.

So if you never want Cerberus to use Reaper tech for future bad deeds, (or how I like to put it: If you never want to give a Pro-Human Terrorist Group power) the only way to do that is never give them the base period. That, or blown them all up, including researchers, employees, soldiers, hundreds of hidden bases, and anyone they may have leaked information to, just right after the final fight against the reapers, so they'll only use the tech for that fight alone.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 octobre 2010 - 06:09 .

[Ieldra]

TMA LIVE wrote...

smudboy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

I think he means saving the base with the idea that you'll destroy it later if TIM starts acting like a bad boy. Which I doubt is possible. Once you give it to TIM, it's his to use. Not yours.

What would destroying the base do if TIM is already a bad boy?  That implies something was learned, like a new technology, and is now applied.

If trouble did occur on the base, and all other options were exhausted, I can see TIM, or Shepard, destroying it in any number of scenarios and ways.

But anyways, even if you destroyed the base later, all you're doing is setting TIM back by, I don't know, 10 years or less. Whatever tech and data he got from the base, he already got. You're just destroying his ability to "currently" make a reaper, and whatever tech he didn't take with him. But if he's smart, he would have already grabbed whatever data and tech he could, and could rebuild another base years later based off that, or something similar. I mean, he already has technology to turn people into a husk from a base that got blown up in the galactic core.

So if you never want Cerberus to use Reaper tech for future bad deeds, (or how I like to put it: If you never want to give a Pro-Human Terrorist Group power) the only way to do that is never give them the base period. That, or blown them all up, including researchers, employees, soldiers, hundreds of hidden bases, and anyone they may have leaked information to, just so you can only use the tech for just the fight against the Reapers.

Again it doesn't matter. Cerberus future bad deeds don't matter unless they result in a "Reapers win" scenario that could've been avoided by not giving the base to them. In that case, we'd have to weigh the risk of "Reapers win" by not having the tech from the base against the risk of "Reapers win" by Cerberus incompetence. Since the Reapers already have the advantage - meaning that "Reapers win" is the default if we don't get a tech advance from some source - I count the latter significantly less likely.

For what the future holds: once Reaper technology is known by anyone, it's known by all, eventually. You can't put the genie back into the bottle. I consider that scenario desirable. Reaper technology must be understood, not just used. Galactic civilization has stagnated because it was too lazy to try to understand the mass relays, and thus developed on the path the Reapers desired. We don't want that. But we also don't want to close off paths of technological development just because we're afraid of change.
 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 octobre 2010 - 06:35 .

[smudboy]

Phaedon wrote...

Oh we're playing what if.

Shepard gets in the SR2. Shepard goes to the Galactic Core through the Omega-4 relay. Shepard brings Joker and EDI along with them. They both destroy all defenses either via superior tactics, firepower or cyberwarfare means. They fire up the Thanix Cannon, and point it at the rather large cylindrical object called the Collector Base.

Problem solved.

Btw, the Thanix Cannon would barely scratch the base. It's actually fires MA projectiles that do the same damage as a cruiser cannon (Medium/Heavy MA projectiles ?).

And you know this how?  The base is defenseless.  It would go the way of the rest of the debris in the system.  The Collector Cruiser had shields and it took a direct hit from the Thanix and went all kablooie.

[TMA LIVE]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Again it doesn't matter. Cerberus future bad deeds don't matter unless they result in a "Reapers win" scenario that could've been avoided by not giving the base the them. In that case, we'd have to weigh the risk of "Reapers win" by not having the tech from the base against the risk of "Reapers win" by Cerberus incompetence. Since the Reapers already have the advantage - meaning that "Reapers win" is the default if we don't get a tech advance from some source - I count the latter significantly less likely.

For what the future holds: once Reaper technology is known by anyone, it's known by all, eventually. You can't put the genie back into the bottle. I consider that scenario desirable. Reaper technology must be understood, not just used. Galactic civilization has stagnated because it was too lazy to try to understand the mass relays, and thus developed on the path the Reapers desired. We don't want that. But we also don't want to close off paths of technological development just because we're afraid of change.
 

Well, supposedly, EDI already downloaded data that might be able to give weak points to a Reaper, plus maybe some data on how to hack them, or prevent them from hacking your ships.

And whatever power you're giving to Cerberus, it's just Cerberus and maybe the Alliance (if you convince them to work together and use the tech). You're not equipping the Council fleet unless TIM gives the tech to everyone, and saves the best bits for himself and his vision of humanity. If that doesn't happen, then pretty much, you're just making one army stronger for the Reaper fight.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 octobre 2010 - 06:33 .

[smudboy]

TMA LIVE wrote...

But anyways, even if you destroyed the base later, all you're doing is setting TIM back by, I don't know, 10 years or less. Whatever tech and data he got from the base, he already got. You're just destroying his ability to "currently" make a reaper, and whatever tech he didn't take with him. But if he's smart, he would have already grabbed whatever data and tech he could, and could rebuild another base years later based off that, or something similar. I mean, he already has technology to turn people into a husk from a base that got blown up in the galactic core.

And why would TIM bother to make a Reaper?  This is pure speculation, and we already know it to be logistically impossible.  Considering we were in complete opposition of our opposing force, it seems illogical to start up their plan, especially toward a pro-human group.

The idea to build another base is...complete idiocy.  There is no reason for this.  Because there already is one.  They want to research the base to help fight against the Reapers.  What could possibly be accomplished building another?

If an edge is acquired, great.  If not, then no harm done.

So if you never want Cerberus to use Reaper tech for future bad deeds, (or how I like to put it: If you never want to give a Pro-Human Terrorist Group power) the only way to do that is never give them the base period. That, or blown them all up, including researchers, employees, soldiers, hundreds of hidden bases, and anyone they may have leaked information to, just right after the final fight against the reapers, so they'll only use the tech for that fight alone.

I want ANYONE to research the base to help fight the Reapers.

Your argument after the fact is moot, because if no one comes up with better tactics against the Reapers, it's all blathering and what if's to the reality of galactic genocide.  Which no one has yet to properly argue against.  They're all under the impression of "IF the Reapers are defeated."

[Ieldra]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Again it doesn't matter. Cerberus future bad deeds don't matter unless they result in a "Reapers win" scenario that could've been avoided by not giving the base the them. In that case, we'd have to weigh the risk of "Reapers win" by not having the tech from the base against the risk of "Reapers win" by Cerberus incompetence. Since the Reapers already have the advantage - meaning that "Reapers win" is the default if we don't get a tech advance from some source - I count the latter significantly less likely.

For what the future holds: once Reaper technology is known by anyone, it's known by all, eventually. You can't put the genie back into the bottle. I consider that scenario desirable. Reaper technology must be understood, not just used. Galactic civilization has stagnated because it was too lazy to try to understand the mass relays, and thus developed on the path the Reapers desired. We don't want that. But we also don't want to close off paths of technological development just because we're afraid of change.
 

Well, supposedly, EDI already downloaded data that might be able to give weak points to a Reaper, plus maybe some data on how to hack them, or prevent them from hacking your ships.

And whatever power you're giving to Cerberus, it's just Cerberus and maybe the Alliance (if you convince them to work together and use the tech). You're not equipping the Council fleet unless TIM gives the tech to everyone, and saves the best bits for himself and his vision of humanity. If that doesn't happen, then pretty much, you're just making one army stronger for the Reaper fight.

Yes. But one army stronger for the Reaper fight is better than no army stronger. Also, keeping the base leaves the possibility open that the knowledge will be more widely distributed, though Cerberus likely wants to keep it exclusive. 
The quoted paragraph about tech distribution, however, applied to an after-the-Reapers scenario. In the long run, you can't keep knowledge like that exclusive.

[TMA LIVE]

smudboy wrote...

TMA LIVE wrote...

But anyways, even if you destroyed the base later, all you're doing is setting TIM back by, I don't know, 10 years or less. Whatever tech and data he got from the base, he already got. You're just destroying his ability to "currently" make a reaper, and whatever tech he didn't take with him. But if he's smart, he would have already grabbed whatever data and tech he could, and could rebuild another base years later based off that, or something similar. I mean, he already has technology to turn people into a husk from a base that got blown up in the galactic core.

And why would TIM bother to make a Reaper?  This is pure speculation, and we already know it to be logistically impossible.  Considering we were in complete opposition of our opposing force, it seems illogical to start up their plan, especially toward a pro-human group.

The idea to build another base is...complete idiocy.  There is no reason for this.  Because there already is one.  They want to research the base to help fight against the Reapers.  What could possibly be accomplished building another?

If an edge is acquired, great.  If not, then no harm done.

So if you never want Cerberus to use Reaper tech for future bad deeds, (or how I like to put it: If you never want to give a Pro-Human Terrorist Group power) the only way to do that is never give them the base period. That, or blown them all up, including researchers, employees, soldiers, hundreds of hidden bases, and anyone they may have leaked information to, just right after the final fight against the reapers, so they'll only use the tech for that fight alone.

I want ANYONE to research the base to help fight the Reapers.

Your argument after the fact is moot, because if no one comes up with better tactics against the Reapers, it's all blathering and what if's to the reality of galactic genocide.  Which no one has yet to properly argue against.  They're all under the impression of "IF the Reapers are defeated."

Why make a reaper? Why not? Something already made a fleet. We already make nukes. Is Cerberus going to make them now? No. They couldn't. But later? Why not.  I mean, if you can make a reapers that you can control, what's stopping you? Sure making one involves lots of people dying, but what if you can find other solutions? What if you can make one without organic flesh? Besides, Cerberus is the type to sacrifice others for TIM's future of humanity. He already says he's going to use that tech for the fight and beyond.

Just think of it like Metal Gear. No matter how many times Solid Snakes destroys one, there will always be another, and they are becoming more deadly. And in the future, everyone has one, and they are everywhere.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 octobre 2010 - 06:47 .