114 réponses à ce sujet

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Phaedon wrote...

Guys, please, CB discussion is a headache to see all over the forums. There is already a thread about it.

Last post was a fortnight ago. If it's not in the first couple pages of threads, it should not be necro'd and a new thread should start.

[Dean_the_Young]

Viceroy, how did the Reapers want us to board the Derilect Reapre, take the IFF, pass through the Omega 4 relay, destroy the Collectors, kill the Human Reaper, and then take the technology inside the base?

[Ryzaki]

I blow it up because:

A. Its a video game and I know the base won't be overly important
B. Explosion > Radiation cutscene
C. Telling TIM to fall in line is *glorious*
D. Shep isn't in the mood to recapture the base after the team falls into Indoctrination
E. Cerberus is about as trustworthy as a rabid dog
F. EDI has a lot of the information from the base already
G. I want to make sure that damn baby Reaper is dead.
H. I want to make sure all those damn Collectors are dead.
I. Destroying any Reaper Failsafe in there.

And everyone can debate the rest of the reasons all they want but A means my decision will never be wrong.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:32 .

[Count Viceroy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Viceroy, how did the Reapers want us to board the Derilect Reapre, take the IFF, pass through the Omega 4 relay, destroy the Collectors, kill the Human Reaper, and then take the technology inside the base?

Obviously, the collector base and everything relating to it would fall under the unintended (by the reapers) gains. I didn't imply otherwise. Or are you just using me to make a point? 

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:22 .

[wizardryforever]

Really, both sides of the argument are based on fear.  For Paragons, it's what the Illusive Man will do with the tech.  For Renegades, it's what the Reapers will do to us if we don't have the tech.  Neither side is pure logic, and I wish people would stop claiming that their side is the only "logical" choice.

But yeah, there's already a thread for this, and I anticipate a lockdown of this one.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

wizardryforever wrote...

Really, both sides of the argument are based on fear.  For Paragons, it's what the Illusive Man will do with the tech.  For Renegades, it's what the Reapers will do to us if we don't have the tech.  Neither side is pure logic, and I wish people would stop claiming that their side is the only "logical" choice.

But yeah, there's already a thread for this, and I anticipate a lockdown of this one.

If the choice is based on fear wouldn't you agree it's more logical to fear the Reapers more than Cerberus?

Also, as I already stated, it's better to start a new thread the necro an old one. I'm almost positive I have seen Pacifen state this.

[Xilizhra]

Hitler did not slaughter people because it was necessary for survival. He did it because he hated Jews.

Actually, he did slaughter people because he thought it was necessary for his idealized German people and nation to survive.

[Ryzaki]

The thread was only 15 days old. It's not like you're resurrecting a 3+ month old thread.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hitler did not slaughter people because it was necessary for survival. He did it because he hated Jews.

Actually, he did slaughter people because he thought it was necessary for his idealized German people and nation to survive.

"Flourish" would probably be a better word to describe what he desired. He did not do it because Germany (and the rest of the world) was about to be wiped out by a seemingly unstoppable galactic force.

[Xilizhra]

Hitler was... well, radical. He did believe that any hope for a better future would be doomed by current trends, and the Aryan race would die behind it, thus leaving no world worth living in behind. Of course, the unstoppable forces he railed against were rather more nebulous than the Reapers, but still...

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Ryzaki wrote...

The thread was only 15 days old. It's not like you're resurrecting a 3+ month old thread.

This one is fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Plus, the other one on the front page is 9 months old.

[wizardryforever]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Really, both sides of the argument are based on fear.  For Paragons, it's what the Illusive Man will do with the tech.  For Renegades, it's what the Reapers will do to us if we don't have the tech.  Neither side is pure logic, and I wish people would stop claiming that their side is the only "logical" choice.

But yeah, there's already a thread for this, and I anticipate a lockdown of this one.

If the choice is based on fear wouldn't you agree it's more logical to fear the Reapers more than Cerberus?

Also, as I already stated, it's better to start a new thread the necro an old one. I'm almost positive I have seen Pacifen state this.

Not really, no.  Neither fear is exactly rational.  We don't have much evidence to support the idea that the Reapers will be unstoppable other than what Sovereign and Harbinger claimed, and what Vigil told us.  We also have no evidence that there is anything useful and/or harmful in the Collector base, so basing one's decisions on "what ifs" is really the only recourse that we have.  Some people are afraid of what tech could be on the base: no evidence to support anything bad being there.  Some people are afraid that we'll be crushed without the tech on the base: no evidence that there is actually anything useful there.

Everything about this decision is rooted in fear, with logic being used to justify either decision with a bunch of "what if" scenarios.

[Xilizhra]

It's worth noting that the Reapers are not, in theory, invincible in a straight-up fight; Vigil states that Sovereign would lose to the Citadel fleet in a one-on-one clash, and in the final battle against Sovereign, it transfers its mind into Saren in a move that would make no sense if all it had to do was wait until it took over the Citadel; it needed the relay opened right then and there, and thus tried to kill Shepard directly before it was destroyed by the Fifth Fleet.

[Count Viceroy]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's worth noting that the Reapers are not, in theory, invincible in a straight-up fight; Vigil states that Sovereign would lose to the Citadel fleet in a one-on-one clash, and in the final battle against Sovereign, it transfers its mind into Saren in a move that would make no sense if all it had to do was wait until it took over the Citadel; it needed the relay opened right then and there, and thus tried to kill Shepard directly before it was destroyed by the Fifth Fleet.

1 reaper and assorted geth took the gathered might of the entire citadel fleet to combat. Now replace the geth with another 1000 ? reapers and the odds change considerably.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:43 .

[Dean_the_Young]

That's not quite accurate, Xil.

'Better choice' isn't the same as 'must'. It certainly was the better choice to try and kill Shepard... but that doesn't mean it had to. Just that Sovereign stood a better choice against Shepard than the fleet, and that is independent of how desperate the chances might have been. If Sovereign calculated that it had a 90% of beating the Fleet outright, but a 95% of beating Shepard, it would still be more logical to try and kill Shepard.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:44 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

wizardryforever wrote...

Not really, no.  Neither fear is exactly rational.  We don't have much evidence to support the idea that the Reapers will be unstoppable other than what Sovereign and Harbinger claimed, and what Vigil told us.  We also have no evidence that there is anything useful and/or harmful in the Collector base, so basing one's decisions on "what ifs" is really the only recourse that we have.  Some people are afraid of what tech could be on the base: no evidence to support anything bad being there.  Some people are afraid that we'll be crushed without the tech on the base: no evidence that there is actually anything useful there.

Everything about this decision is rooted in fear, with logic being used to justify either decision with a bunch of "what if" scenarios.

Did you play ME1 and did you witness the battle of the Citadel?

[Weskerr]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's worth noting that the Reapers are not, in theory, invincible in a straight-up fight; Vigil states that Sovereign would lose to the Citadel fleet in a one-on-one clash, and in the final battle against Sovereign, it transfers its mind into Saren in a move that would make no sense if all it had to do was wait until it took over the Citadel; it needed the relay opened right then and there, and thus tried to kill Shepard directly before it was destroyed by the Fifth Fleet.

Vigil said a reaper, not reapers. By itself, Sovereign stood little chance against an entire fleet. Would 2 reapers during the Citadel battle have made a difference instead of 1? I think so. A whole fleet of reapers would be invincible in a straight-up-fight.

[Count Viceroy]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Not really, no.  Neither fear is exactly rational.  We don't have much evidence to support the idea that the Reapers will be unstoppable other than what Sovereign and Harbinger claimed, and what Vigil told us.  We also have no evidence that there is anything useful and/or harmful in the Collector base, so basing one's decisions on "what ifs" is really the only recourse that we have.  Some people are afraid of what tech could be on the base: no evidence to support anything bad being there.  Some people are afraid that we'll be crushed without the tech on the base: no evidence that there is actually anything useful there.

Everything about this decision is rooted in fear, with logic being used to justify either decision with a bunch of "what if" scenarios.

Did you play ME1 and did you witness the battle of the Citadel?

 To play devils advocate. Me1 tells of the fall of the protheans, they were defeated that easily cause the citadel trap worked and they became cut off. Reapers are still deadly, just pointing out that the fall of the protheans aren't good example of how the reapers perform in combat.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:48 .

[SomeKindaEnigma]

GodWood wrote...

Wolfy2249 wrote...
plus i heard something that in me3 it backfires

I heard in ME3 Shepard dies of syphilis.

of quarian syphilis*

you missed a word there 

[wizardryforever]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Not really, no.  Neither fear is exactly rational.  We don't have much evidence to support the idea that the Reapers will be unstoppable other than what Sovereign and Harbinger claimed, and what Vigil told us.  We also have no evidence that there is anything useful and/or harmful in the Collector base, so basing one's decisions on "what ifs" is really the only recourse that we have.  Some people are afraid of what tech could be on the base: no evidence to support anything bad being there.  Some people are afraid that we'll be crushed without the tech on the base: no evidence that there is actually anything useful there.

Everything about this decision is rooted in fear, with logic being used to justify either decision with a bunch of "what if" scenarios.

Did you play ME1 and did you witness the battle of the Citadel?

I did, and as I recall Sovereign was soundly defeated even with the losses taken to save the Destiny Ascension.  I'm not saying that the Reapers will be a cakewalk, but really, unstoppable?  If that isn't fear and propaganda, I don't know what is.

[Wolfy2449]

SomeKindaEnigma wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Wolfy2249 wrote...
plus i heard something that in me3 it backfires

I heard in ME3 Shepard dies of syphilis.

of turian syphilis*

you missed a word there 

Fixed xD



I have a long time to play me1 but afair, sovereign was unstopable, he one shotted everything and didnt take any serious damage, he only lost his defenses because he controlled Sarens body

I believe that a reaper is almost impossible to be destroyed without doing something else, 2-3 reapers would be unstopable a gazzillion like in the end of me2 would be ragnarok. At least thats the impression i have about reaper ships

Modifié par Wolfy2449, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:51 .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Did you play ME1 and did you witness the battle of the Citadel?

 To play devils advocate. Me1 tells of the fall of the protheans, they were defeated that easily cause the citadel trap worked. And they became cut off. Reapers are still deadly . Just pointing out that the fall of the protheans aren't good example of how the reapers perform in combat.

In ME1 you see a Reaper in combat, and it devestates the Citadel fleet. A single Reaper. Youtube "mass effect battle of the citadel." You will see the destruction a single Reaper unleashes. We stand zero chance against a fleet, currently.

[Count Viceroy]

wizardryforever wrote...

I did, and as I recall Sovereign was soundly defeated even with the losses taken to save the Destiny Ascension.  I'm not saying that the Reapers will be a cakewalk, but really, unstoppable?  If that isn't fear and propaganda, I don't know what is.

1 reaper, and the only reason it 'died' was because it took a risk and took over saren when he failed. If he'd stayed in combat instead then it would have been different.

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

In ME1
you see a Reaper in combat, and it devestates the Citadel fleet. A
single Reaper. Youtube "mass effect battle of the citadel." You will see
the destruction a single Reaper unleashes. We stand zero chance against
a fleet, currently.

Read what I said, hell I'm even on your side in this. I said the fall of the protheans isn't a good example, is all.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:51 .

[Dean_the_Young]

If 'soundly defeated' is your description of tearing multiple fleets apart, we need to get a better description system going.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Yeah if we can't agree that a fleet of Reapers would tear through the combined Citadel fleet without breaking a sweat, well, we won't be able to agree on anything.

Count Viceroy wrote...

Read what I said, hell I'm even on your side in this. I said the fall of the protheans isn't a good example, is all.

I apologize. I misunderstood the point of your post.

Modifié par Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:54 .