197 réponses à ce sujet

[Skilled Seeker]

Moiaussi wrote...
 What is any time we see an FTL shuttle in ME2?

When escaping from the Lazarus base.

[GGRush]

Just_mike wrote...

I think we are all missing the point here.

Does it matter if Balak really is a mastermind?
It comes down to this: Would you sacrifice human lives to catch a criminal who might end up getting away anyways?
Thats the moral dilemma.

Oh, and on my first playthrough, I killed that Balak. XD I hate Batarians. :/

Or, would you nicely give a terrorist, who is very likely to betray his promise after he escapes, whatever he wants so that you have a slim chance of saving a few hostages.

Works both ways.

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...
If there are FTL small craft, why didn't Balak just rig such a shuttle with nukes and launch it at FTL into the colony? It would have been a lot safer than using the asteroid.

I can think of 4 reasons.  Reason #1 an asteroid drop kills the planet, nuke drop wouldn't (unless they had a lot of nukes).  Reason #2 he wasn't able to acquire nuclear weapons.  Reason #3 an asteroid drop is much more dramatic, especially given the defenses X57 was outfitted with, the idea that the Batarians can just waltz in and commandeer an asteroid is much more terrifying than the knowledge they have nuclear weapons and shuttle craft.  Reason #4 he wanted the attack to look like an accident so as to avoid Alliance retalliation against the Hedgemony.

[Moiaussi]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...
 What is any time we see an FTL shuttle in ME2?

When escaping from the Lazarus base.

And we know Cerberus had no ships there? Or even other bases? It's not like they were likely to build Lazarus right beside a mass relay where it would be seen by any pirate fleet passing by...

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

I can think of 4 reasons.  Reason #1 an asteroid drop kills the planet, nuke drop wouldn't (unless they had a lot of nukes).  Reason #2 he wasn't able to acquire nuclear weapons.  Reason #3 an asteroid drop is much more dramatic, especially given the defenses X57 was outfitted with, the idea that the Batarians can just waltz in and commandeer an asteroid is much more terrifying than the knowledge they have nuclear weapons and shuttle craft.  Reason #4 he wanted the attack to look like an accident so as to avoid Alliance retalliation against the Hedgemony.

I think you are severely underestimating the sheer impact damage. The asteroid would have more mass, but is travelling nowhere near light speed, let alone FTL. The nuke itself wouldn't be neccessary.

I would think that taking out colonies in a way noone has the tech to do anything about is as or more dramatic than simply dropping asteroids, other than the latter giving the opportunity to stop it.

If they didn't want to take credit for (or be blamed for) the attack, the FTL bombardment would make even more sense, since there would be no way to trace it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

The writers are military fools, no mistake. Not that most people on this board, including myself, can claim to be experts or sensible by any measure.

One does not have to be an expert to be able to recognize basic tactical concepts, and to the extent people here are FPS veterans, they may even have practiced such concepts online.

Moiaussi, any military realism went away in ME1 about the time the geth never used biological, chemical, or nerv weapons on organics despite us being, well, organic, and them synthetic. Meaning they could freely use WMD's that would kill us in in short order but leave them alive.

Mass Effect is not a military techno-thriller. It was never meant to be emulate military realism. Expecting what they have never promised or delivered or even offered is a waste of everyone's time.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi, any military realism went away in ME1 about the time the geth never used biological, chemical, or nerv weapons on organics despite us being, well, organic, and them synthetic. Meaning they could freely use WMD's that would kill us in in short order but leave them alive.

Mass Effect is not a military techno-thriller. It was never meant to be emulate military realism. Expecting what they have never promised or delivered or even offered is a waste of everyone's time.

The reapers wanted the populace left alive for slushies. Also, there were bio, chem and radioactive rounds available in ME1. Saren had also wired the spaceport on Eden with explosives with unspecified warheads. What game were you playing? (not the first time I have asked you that...).

The choice of any given faction using WMD's or not is a political one, not strictly a tactical one. Using an asteroid as a weapon shows the willingness to use WMD's, hence the question regarding other such options do apply to BDtS. It doesn't follow that they apply everywhere else.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi, any military realism went away in ME1 about the time the geth never used biological, chemical, or nerv weapons on organics despite us being, well, organic, and them synthetic. Meaning they could freely use WMD's that would kill us in in short order but leave them alive.

Mass Effect is not a military techno-thriller. It was never meant to be emulate military realism. Expecting what they have never promised or delivered or even offered is a waste of everyone's time.

The reapers wanted the populace left alive for slushies. Also, there were bio, chem and radioactive rounds available in ME1. Saren had also wired the spaceport on Eden with explosives with unspecified warheads. What game were you playing? (not the first time I have asked you that...).

The Reapers wanted humans alive... which is why they didn't use WMD's in fighting on Eden Prime, but were going to blow up the entire colony.

Yeah. Right.

Besides that Reaper (Collector) interest only focused on humanity after Sovereign, battlefield usage of bioweapons, nerve agents, and other anti-organic weapons that don't harm synthetics wouldn't automatically kill human populations... which they were already sticking on Dragon's Teeth.

The Geth have a history in the morning war of using WMD's against organics. They were certainly not concerned with capturing every human population they were fighting in ME1. They continually fought without ever using proven weaponry that could tip the scales in their favor, even after passing the point of willing to use WMD's.


Yeah, it's a pretty stupid depiction of them.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 13 novembre 2010 - 03:47 .

[Dean_the_Young]

DPSSOC wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...
If there are FTL small craft, why didn't Balak just rig such a shuttle with nukes and launch it at FTL into the colony? It would have been a lot safer than using the asteroid.

I can think of 4 reasons.  Reason #1 an asteroid drop kills the planet, nuke drop wouldn't (unless they had a lot of nukes).  Reason #2 he wasn't able to acquire nuclear weapons.  Reason #3 an asteroid drop is much more dramatic, especially given the defenses X57 was outfitted with, the idea that the Batarians can just waltz in and commandeer an asteroid is much more terrifying than the knowledge they have nuclear weapons and shuttle craft.  Reason #4 he wanted the attack to look like an accident so as to avoid Alliance retalliation against the Hedgemony.

Reason #5: In the ME universe as expanded by Cerberus Daily News, it's super-incredibly hard to bypass safety blocks built into FTL systems to prevent just that sort of thing, and Balak doesn't have access to such. (And putting nukes on a shuttle at FTL speeds wouldn't do any more than the actual FTL itself.)

Reason #6: Balak didn't have access to nukes.

Reason #7: Mass Effect is a game, and they wanted a mission in which Shepard could stop disaster.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Reapers wanted humans alive... which is why they didn't use WMD's in fighting on Eden Prime, but were going to blow up the entire colony.

Yeah. Right.

Besides that Reaper (Collector) interest only focused on humanity after Sovereign, battlefield usage of bioweapons, nerve agents, and other anti-organic weapons that don't harm synthetics wouldn't automatically kill human populations... which they were already sticking on Dragon's Teeth.

They were still keeping a low profile, and Saren was trying to conciel what he and the Reapers were up to (actually it is true that the human slushie concept might not even have been devised yet, but nevertheless...)

Many of the worlds the Geth were fighting on were barren (such weapons are not especially useful outside of an atmosphere), and for that matter, the Geth themselves wouldn't have had any data on human physiology. Saren might have been able to provide them some, but again, the whole Geth invasion was just a distraction to cover the attack on the citadel.

Note also that the use of bio/chem/radioactive rounds for conventional weapons are not that much more deadly than regular ammunition, so it may be that such weapons are simply less practical due to medical advances (biogel does seem a cure all).

But what you really seem to be saying is 'its just bad writing that they didn't use better WMD's, but it is actually believable writing that Balak simply vanishes magically.'

Make up your mind. Do the writers only know what they are talking about when it is convenient to your arguements?

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Reason #5: In the ME universe as expanded by Cerberus Daily News, it's super-incredibly hard to bypass safety blocks built into FTL systems to prevent just that sort of thing, and Balak doesn't have access to such. (And putting nukes on a shuttle at FTL speeds wouldn't do any more than the actual FTL itself.)

Reason #6: Balak didn't have access to nukes.

Reason #7: Mass Effect is a game, and they wanted a mission in which Shepard could stop disaster.

5) The Batarans don't build their own FTL drives? How did they become spacefaring in the first place? They can't build a drive from scratch without such protocols? Do you have a reference to this news article? They are also saying that it is impossible to crash any ship, since the protocols prevent all possible crashes?

6) Shepard marked Uranium all over the traverse, just sitting there to be mined. The tech to build a nuke is low, and regardless, a nuke isn't needed if you have FTL shuttles.

7) If you are following that arguement, stop making a case for any given thing being realistic, believable, or good writing.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

But what you really seem to be saying is 'its just bad writing that they didn't use better WMD's, but it is actually believable writing that Balak simply vanishes magically.'

Make up your mind. Do the writers only know what they are talking about when it is convenient to your arguements?

I did make up my mind. It's as I've already said: the quality of the writing is largely consistent across the spread of the games and franchise. And, as I've already written several posts to the extent that the Balak delimma was contrived from both directions, how you get that I'm defending the quality of the writing for that choice is beyond me.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Reason #5: In the ME universe as expanded by Cerberus Daily News, it's super-incredibly hard to bypass safety blocks built into FTL systems to prevent just that sort of thing, and Balak doesn't have access to such. (And putting nukes on a shuttle at FTL speeds wouldn't do any more than the actual FTL itself.)

Reason #6: Balak didn't have access to nukes.

Reason #7: Mass Effect is a game, and they wanted a mission in which Shepard could stop disaster.

5) The Batarans don't build their own FTL drives? How did they become spacefaring in the first place? They can't build a drive from scratch without such protocols? Do you have a reference to this news article? They are also saying that it is impossible to crash any ship, since the protocols prevent all possible crashes?

Simply because the Batarians build their own doesn't mean they don't incorporate and keep safeguards from the time they were a Citadel species. They have reasons for keeping such things restricted as well.

You are more than capable of searching through Cerberus Daily News yourself for the articles on the Taetrus bombing, and about how it was done. That arc was largely the month of May 2010.

7) If you are following that arguement, stop making a case for any given thing being realistic, believable, or good writing.

...I'm not. That's the exact opposite of what I've been saying.

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
I can think of 4 reasons.  Reason #1 an asteroid drop kills the planet, nuke drop wouldn't (unless they had a lot of nukes).  Reason #2 he wasn't able to acquire nuclear weapons.  Reason #3 an asteroid drop is much more dramatic, especially given the defenses X57 was outfitted with, the idea that the Batarians can just waltz in and commandeer an asteroid is much more terrifying than the knowledge they have nuclear weapons and shuttle craft.  Reason #4 he wanted the attack to look like an accident so as to avoid Alliance retalliation against the Hedgemony.

I think you are severely underestimating the sheer impact damage. The asteroid would have more mass, but is travelling nowhere near light speed, let alone FTL. The nuke itself wouldn't be neccessary.

Perhaps I am.

Moiaussi wrote...
I would think that taking out colonies in a way noone has the tech to do anything about is as or more dramatic than simply dropping asteroids, other than the latter giving the opportunity to stop it.

Except ramming a shuttle into a planet would leave nothing, what wasn't ripped apart by friction with the atmosphere (considerable friction given the velocities we're dealing with) would have been vaporized from impact.  So all they'd know is that something was rammed into the planet about the size of a shuttle: that could be a shuttle, a small asteroid, or a Winnebago.  There's no drama, no terror, in something just hitting the planet, the asteroid provides foreboding.  Think of it like this, what can't be stopped isn't frightening; age, death, taxes, etc aren't all that terrifying to the average joe (some people sure).  What is terrifying is what can be stopped but wasn't; because it means we failed, that we are weak and vulnerable, and that is fear.

Moiaussi wrote...
If they didn't want to take credit for (or be blamed for) the attack, the FTL bombardment would make even more sense, since there would be no way to trace it.

Yes but it would be obvious that somebody intended for it to happen.  Unless they highjacked a passenger vessel and managed to jerry-rig a malfunction in the protocols to allow for an "accidental" crash it would be obvious that someone intended to do it and all eyes would look to the Terminus, and more specifically, the Batarians.  This puts the Alliance on high alert meaning they can never pull that trick again.

An asteroid on the other hand, an asteroid they were trying to bring in to orbit, could have been caused by some malfunction or miscalculation with the fusion torches.  Furthermore it discourages human colonial expansion (X57 was part of a project to mine the asteroid and use the hollowed out shell for colonizing) because it could happen again, humanity shrinks back to their more comfortable systems, hides, grows stagnant, allowing the Batarians a better chance in a future conflict.

An enemy can be fought, and anything with the appearance of an intentional act will just put humanity on the war path for the ones responsible.  You can't fight an accident though, and since no one will be able to figure out what went wrong (because nothing did) the threat will continue to loom over any similar projects.

[Moiaussi]

DPSSOC wrote...

Except ramming a shuttle into a planet would leave nothing, what wasn't ripped apart by friction with the atmosphere (considerable friction given the velocities we're dealing with) would have been vaporized from impact.  So all they'd know is that something was rammed into the planet about the size of a shuttle: that could be a shuttle, a small asteroid, or a Winnebago.  There's no drama, no terror, in something just hitting the planet, the asteroid provides foreboding.  Think of it like this, what can't be stopped isn't frightening; age, death, taxes, etc aren't all that terrifying to the average joe (some people sure).  What is terrifying is what can be stopped but wasn't; because it means we failed, that we are weak and vulnerable, and that is fear.

If they are after terror, they could announce before launch. They could even announce that they would be doing so 'somewhere' and not announce in advance where. They could even distance themselves from the rest of the Batarans politicly (or try to). Ships using such tactics wouldn't have to be based on Bataran worlds, and would be untraceable to the crime in any event.

If they were after revenge, winning a war when the other side has no clue what is hitting them is pretty good revenge.

Yes but it would be obvious that somebody intended for it to happen.  Unless they highjacked a passenger vessel and managed to jerry-rig a malfunction in the protocols to allow for an "accidental" crash it would be obvious that someone intended to do it and all eyes would look to the Terminus, and more specifically, the Batarians.  This puts the Alliance on high alert meaning they can never pull that trick again.

An asteroid on the other hand, an asteroid they were trying to bring in to orbit, could have been caused by some malfunction or miscalculation with the fusion torches.  Furthermore it discourages human colonial expansion (X57 was part of a project to mine the asteroid and use the hollowed out shell for colonizing) because it could happen again, humanity shrinks back to their more comfortable systems, hides, grows stagnant, allowing the Batarians a better chance in a future conflict.

An enemy can be fought, and anything with the appearance of an intentional act will just put humanity on the war path for the ones responsible.  You can't fight an accident though, and since no one will be able to figure out what went wrong (because nothing did) the threat will continue to loom over any similar projects.

How does the alliance being on high alert prevent anything? The weapon is travelling at FTL speeds, undetectable and untargetable. What is the defence against such a tactic? The projectiles have many many times the mass of those fired from the largest dreadnaught and many many times the velocity. Anything stationary has no defence short of being in a neblula.

And anything in the traverse being blown up would be a pretty big discouragement for colonies, asteroid or no...  Note that if it wasn't traceable the Geth would have likely ended up taking the blame.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Simply because the Batarians build their own doesn't mean they don't incorporate and keep safeguards from the time they were a Citadel species. They have reasons for keeping such things restricted as well.

You are more than capable of searching through Cerberus Daily News yourself for the articles on the Taetrus bombing, and about how it was done. That arc was largely the month of May 2010.

We know that sensors seem to be manually calabrated. All that would have to be done is to miscalabrate them. Regardless the concept that there are some sort of completely tamper proof sealed box safeguards is just more writing nonsense. That really translates into 'as of ME2, engineers are all idiots' (which also explains why noone even looks at the mech controls on Lazarus, since they are in the mech control room, even if Shep is an engineer). From your other point below though I take it you agree with that?

...I'm not. That's the exact opposite of what I've been saying.

Then I apologize, however you seemed to still come up with (5) and (6) when your point (7) renders all the other points moot.

[Urazz]

My Shepard didn't let the bastard get away. He shot him up but left him alive for the Alliance to pick up. He didn't trust him to keep his word to not kill the hostages (or detonate the bombs early in an attempt to kill Shepard) and figured Balak could potentially cause more damage if he gets away than the sacrifice of the hostages would cause.

Modifié par Urazz, 14 novembre 2010 - 07:10 .

[azerSheppard]

Kill, thats what i did, he poses too much danger, If he got away with it, he would repeat it. Killing him sends out a message; "We do not negotiate with terrorists."



Letting him go would say; "Abuse us please, we are nogood 2shoes."



No offence, those are my opinions.

[DPSSOC]

Moiaussi wrote...
How does the alliance being on high alert prevent anything? The weapon is travelling at FTL speeds, undetectable and untargetable. What is the defence against such a tactic? The projectiles have many many times the mass of those fired from the largest dreadnaught and many many times the velocity. Anything stationary has no defence short of being in a neblula.

Because of the apparent limitations of FTL flight.  In order to get within striking distance of a human colony they'd need to make a relay jump to the cluster first.  All it takes is small fleet at each Relay with orders to disable and detain any unscheduled or unidentified vessel and they're not only stopped, but busted the first time they try again.

[GreenDragon37]

I let him go. I couldn't sacrifice the hostages. But I'll find that bastard again.

[Obadiah]

Couldn't find a more recent thread so I'll post here.

Balak is one guy I wouldn't want to "hear" from again. Plus, all he would need to do a find some other rock in the system and launch it at Elysium in the future to cause a catastrophe. Can Shep really chance that not happening between then and whenever Shep finally catches up to him? Balak will be taking potshots at humans until he is caught - chances are he'll kill at least three.

There's another way to look at X57 though. Shep's mission was a stop the asteriod from crashing into the planet. Mission accomplished. Saving the hostages or catching Balak (one guy) is secondary - which is more important?

Modifié par Obadiah, 21 février 2011 - 02:01 .

[JKegS85]

 After 2 pages of reading posts i still havent seen ne1 think of the possibility that first hit me. Shepard says he will find him again, at least with my shepard he keeps his promises. For those who say hell just take hostages again i say, Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice shame on me. Think Shepard wont be prepared for that next time? To the idea of Balak setting off the bombs as soon as hes far enough away. A) by the time hes far enough away to be comfortable the detonator will be out of range, or Shepard is a Spectre (master at electronics, explosives, knives, guns, nuclear missiles, and even bottles of ryncol if thats what it takes to survive and kill enemies), whats to keep him from takin 2 seconds and slappin some omni-gel on that bomb to disable it. Just because you like killing Balak doesnt mean its the only plausible route to victory. Everyone who plays wants to kill him but some of us control our impulses well enough to consider the cost too high for a paragon shep. Renegade Shep should absolutely put an extra vent in his head. Plus by letting Balak live u get some extra content in ME3. "nuff said"