117 réponses à ce sujet

[Mavaras]

 I keep the collector base under the principle of risk management. The following was my logic for justification.

The Argument Based on Risk (note* only based on risk)

The first step is to derive the benefits and risks from the applicable alternatives: 

1.Destroy the base

2.Allow the base to exist


If one destroys the base, they prevent potential abuse of the technology but permanently waste the opportunity to utilize that particular piece of technology. If the the base is saved, abuse and utilization of the technology are both possibilities. At first glance, this appears to be a trade off; heavy risk heavy reward. However, under the undesirable situation that could arise from alternative 2, this being the abusive use of collector base technology, there still exists potential to ameliorate the problem. Alternative one offers no such opportunity. To summarize, if one destroys the collector base and latter finds it had valuable information, they cannot bring it back.


This insight makes the alternatives look something like this:


1. Destroy the base:

-Avoid opportunities of Abuse (positive)

-Avoid opportunities for technological advancement (negative)


2. Save the base:

-Keep opportunities of abuse (negative)

-Keep opportunities for technological advancement (positive)

-Chance to rectify abuse by reclaiming the technology or then destorying it (positive)

The person who chooses to destroy the base believes that avoiding the opportunities of abuse outweighs potentially losing technological advancement and forfeiting the future ability to rectify their decision if it is proven wrong.

-If possible abuse, risk of destroying important technology is acceptable.


The person who chooses to save the base believes that the chance of abuse is acceptable because it allows technological advancement and the chance to ameliorate their decision if they are determined to be wrong.


-For possible technological advancement, risk of abuse is acceptable because if abused, there is still a chance to rectify the problem later.


1. The outcome of keeping the base is uncertain.
2. If the base is kept, one risks abuse of the technology.
3. If the base is destroyed, one risks losing out on technological advancement.
4. If the base is destroyed or kept, one is contributing to a risk.
5. If the technology is abused, one can attempt to destroy or reclaim it.
6. If the technology is destroyed, one cannot bring it back.
7. Risky behavior that can be rectified is preferable to risky behavior that can't.
8. Keeping the base is preferable to destroying it.

THEREFORE,

9. One should not destroy the base.

Modifié par Mavaras, 10 décembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[AdmiralCheez]

@Mavaras: Sweet logic. I like you. (Yes, I'm allowed to like people and their arguments even if they disagree with me.)

[Praetor Knight]

Mavaras wrote...

 *snip*
THEREFORE,

9. One should not destroy the base.

My main concern is that TIM doesn't mind collateral, so how many lives might keeping the base cost? both short and long term?

But trying to be logical and pragmatic, I can see why keeping all of your options open is a good thing.

[-Skorpious-]

I agree with Mavaras, as that was exactly what was going threw my mind when making the decision. However we have no idea how permanent the CB decision really is. Obviously, I am alluding to the fact that Shepard may not get a chance to rectify his/her "mistake" in ME3. Cerberus may lose control of the base at one point, but another faction like the Alliance may step-in and assume direct control of the station (no pun intended).

My point is, for those who like to meta-game a bit, this uncertainty is problematic.

[Mavaras]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Mavaras wrote...

 *snip*
THEREFORE,

9. One should not destroy the base.

My main concern is that TIM doesn't mind collateral, so how many lives might keeping the base cost? both short and long term?

But trying to be logical and pragmatic, I can see why keeping all of your options open is a good thing.

Indeed. That seems a reasonable point to address. Since I never distinguish the extremity of different risks; it is possible for the risk of abuse to far outweigh the risk of technology; the logic is forced to operate on imperfect information. My rationalty is completely bounded and therefore risks being wrong as more information is revealed.

Modifié par Mavaras, 10 décembre 2010 - 04:55 .

[Mavaras]

-Skorpious- wrote...

I agree with Mavaras, as that was exactly what was going threw my mind when making the decision. However we have no idea how permanent the CB decision really is. Obviously, I am alluding to the fact that Shepard may not get a chance to rectify his/her "mistake" in ME3. Cerberus may lose control of the base at one point, but another faction like the Alliance may step-in and assume direct control of the station (no pun intended).
My point is, for those who like to meta-game a bit, this uncertainty is problematic.

True. Imperfect information makes projecting outcomes difficult.

[PauseforEffect]

I disagree with the OP on the alternative dialogue being offered. The reason why Shepard took that mission in the first place was to stop people from being abducted. Changing the speech to what was suggested sounds too self-absorbed, something the Illusive Man will call Shepard on.

[RiouHotaru]

I must be one of the only people who DIDN'T mind the ending dialogue then. I thought the lines fit perfectly.



"I won't let fear compromise who I am." - This has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with fear of the base or what it does. TIM tries to instill fear by claiming that lives will be lost without it. Shepard refuses to allow that attempted-instilled fear compromise his principles and decisions. Remember, Paragons have stated from the start that they intend to destroy the base, even though it could be an asset, based on the many logical reasons stated earlier. Renegades decide keeping it is worth the risk and use the radiation pulse.



"I won't sacrifice the soul of our species..." - Again, this makes sense for a Paragon. Paragon Shepard, at least the way the game portrays it [Obviously players have their own interpretations] is someone who seeks to show humanity's desire for cooperation and to be an active, productive member of the galactic community. Obviously, heading in the direction of a power-hungry race grabbing and shoving it's way into dominance doesn't show this.



But that's just my two cents. My only gripe dialogue lines are the greeting lines to the VS on Horizon, all of which sound incredibly awkward, and the infamous "I want you, Thane." dialogue-wheel dissonace, where what Shepard says is thankfully NOTHING like what you thought you were picking.

[Markinator_123]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I must be one of the only people who DIDN'T mind the ending dialogue then. I thought the lines fit perfectly.

"I won't let fear compromise who I am." - This has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with fear of the base or what it does. TIM tries to instill fear by claiming that lives will be lost without it. Shepard refuses to allow that attempted-instilled fear compromise his principles and decisions. Remember, Paragons have stated from the start that they intend to destroy the base, even though it could be an asset, based on the many logical reasons stated earlier. Renegades decide keeping it is worth the risk and use the radiation pulse.

"I won't sacrifice the soul of our species..." - Again, this makes sense for a Paragon. Paragon Shepard, at least the way the game portrays it [Obviously players have their own interpretations] is someone who seeks to show humanity's desire for cooperation and to be an active, productive member of the galactic community. Obviously, heading in the direction of a power-hungry race grabbing and shoving it's way into dominance doesn't show this.

But that's just my two cents. My only gripe dialogue lines are the greeting lines to the VS on Horizon, all of which sound incredibly awkward, and the infamous "I want you, Thane." dialogue-wheel dissonace, where what Shepard says is thankfully NOTHING like what you thought you were picking.

Then what is a paragon Shepard's reasoning for destroying it then? Apparantly, a paragon is not destroying it based upon what Cerberus may do with it (which is one of the very few logical reasons for destroying it). You talk about a paragon is compromising his/her principles by keeping the base. How in the world is Shepard compromising his/her principles by keeping that base? Regardless of what Shepard says after the Omega 4 relay the mission was to destroy the collectors and finding out why they were kidnapping humans. Shepard at first thought the only way to destroy the collectors was to destroy the base, however another alternative presented itself. Therefore destroying the base =/= mission

Both the lines "I won't let fear compromise who I am" and "I won't sacrifice the soul of our species" make Shepard look like a spineless, weak, naive, irrational, idealistic moron. This is the type of person who would let innocent people die for their own irrational ideals.

[RiouHotaru]

I'm a Paragon, so my Shepards are Paragon. Their reasoning? TIM has a horrible track record, and has given me/them absolutely no reason to trust him with something this big. We feel that we can beat the Reaper's without playing their own game.



I take it you're a Renegade?

[Markinator_123]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'm a Paragon, so my Shepards are Paragon. Their reasoning? TIM has a horrible track record, and has given me/them absolutely no reason to trust him with something this big. We feel that we can beat the Reaper's without playing their own game.

I take it you're a Renegade?

Here is my cannon Shepard's morality. What do you interpret?

http://www.xfire.com...?view#107180575

[RiouHotaru]

Mmmm...mostly even. Though I'm curious how/if you made some of the confrontation checks with those scores.



Forgive me for generalizing you, I'm use to Renegades forumites being the one bashing Paragons left and right, so by now it's practically a reflex to assume that Paragon-bashing arguments=Renegade player.

[Markinator_123]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Mmmm...mostly even. Though I'm curious how/if you made some of the confrontation checks with those scores.

Forgive me for generalizing you, I'm use to Renegades forumites being the one bashing Paragons left and right, so by now it's practically a reflex to assume that Paragon-bashing arguments=Renegade player.

No offense taken. I do Jack and Miranda's loyalty mission immediately after Horizon. I solve that fight renegade(I have both the paragon and renegade available). Legion's loyalty mission is last before the suicide mission. I solve the fight between it and Tali Paragon(I only had the paragon available but I didn't want to solve it renegade anyway. The renegade speech given to Tali and Legion makes Shepard sound like M.Bison lol). I am not a fan of either extreme.

Modifié par Markinator_123, 10 décembre 2010 - 11:45 .

[RiouHotaru]

Ahhhhh, I see. I take it you had the maximum possible import bonus for renegade points?

[Markinator_123]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ahhhhh, I see. I take it you had the maximum possible import bonus for renegade points?

I do not have the maximum amount of renegade points but a pretty healthy amount. I have the maximum paragon points however which may be the main reason the paragon wins. Yes, everyone can be loyal to a morally ambiguous Shepard like mine. I must say that playing this way is very enjoyable. A perfect anti-hero!

Modifié par Markinator_123, 10 décembre 2010 - 11:52 .

[RiouHotaru]

I wind up with full paragon and about a little over half your renegade points. So basically a Paragade of sorts. She's not above not taking names and getting her gun off when need be, but she prefers a softer, gentler touch.

[Phaelducan]

-Skorpious- wrote...

I agree with Mavaras, as that was exactly what was going threw my mind when making the decision. However we have no idea how permanent the CB decision really is. Obviously, I am alluding to the fact that Shepard may not get a chance to rectify his/her "mistake" in ME3. Cerberus may lose control of the base at one point, but another faction like the Alliance may step-in and assume direct control of the station (no pun intended).
My point is, for those who like to meta-game a bit, this uncertainty is problematic.

I would guess that once the Trilogy is complete and we know all the variable outcomes, there will be a strong drive for some players (myself included) to play through all three making the exact choices we want to get the desired outcome. I take it for granted that some of the choices I've made I might not like the result of come the end of ME3, so the good news is I can just replay it.

If it turns out to be a huge mistake saving or destroying the base, just reload a save at the end of ME2 and do it up the way you want.