586 réponses à ce sujet

[Pro_Consul]

Ryzaki wrote...

I think said backfiring (I'm not totally sure on this so if anyone knows better feel free to correct me!) was due to indoctrination. 

I heard this second hand and not in great detail, but as it was related to me the salvaged tech that TIM had his scientists use had Reaper indoc type tech built into it, and the first prototype subject was under Reaper control from practically the beginning.

[Pro_Consul]

White_Buffalo94 wrote...

I keep it because survival against the Reapers is all that matters. The tech in that base is thus a tool for survival.

Do you have a plan for accessing that tech without being indoctrinated first? Just curious.

[Ryzaki]

Pro_Consul wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I think said backfiring (I'm not totally sure on this so if anyone knows better feel free to correct me!) was due to indoctrination. 

I heard this second hand and not in great detail, but as it was related to me the salvaged tech that TIM had his scientists use had Reaper indoc type tech built into it, and the first prototype subject was under Reaper control from practically the beginning.

Fantastic. 

Derperus strikes again *sighs and rubs temples*. 

[chapa3]

"I think said backfiring (I'm not totally sure on this so if anyone knows better feel free to correct me!) was due to indoctrination."



Indoctrination can be fiddled around with. The only real reason I imploded the base was the heavy risk that Illusive Man would get ambitious and build another reaper.

[Ryzaki]

chapa3 wrote...
"

Indoctrination can be fiddled around with. The only real reason I imploded the base was the heavy risk that Illusive Man would get ambitious and build another reaper.

 

That to me was a distinct second threat. I was more concerned with the scientists in the base becoming indoctrinated but pretending they weren't and the giant secruity risk that would pose if they began shipping their information to valuable defenses once the Reapers hit. (Said shipping would involve them knowning where the defenses where and if they know, the Reapers know). 

[chapa3]

The reapers are part machine. If they want to hack their way into the extranet, it would not be that difficult. To be honest, I don't think the reapers would be defeated through open combat. Maybe half a dozen get destroyed during the defense of the Milky Way, but it will take some Deus Ex Machina to truly wipe out the reapers.

Any defense against the reapers will not last long. It should only be used to delay them.

Modifié par chapa3, 11 février 2011 - 06:14 .

[Ryzaki]

chapa3 wrote...

The reapers are part machine. If they want to hack their way into the extranet, it would not be that difficult. To be honest, I don't think the reapers would be defeated through open combat. Maybe half a dozen get destroyed during the defense of the Milky Way, but it will take some Deus Ex Machina to truly wipe out the reapers.

Any defense against the reapers will not last long. It should only be used to delay them.

True. It is going to be a Deus Ex Machina. Of the magical virius kind.  

20 bucks I'm right. 

Either that or Shep'll chase the back into DS for the next protagonist in the ME series to deal with. 

[James2912]

I kept the base and if TIM builds a reaper in ME3 I am going to take the game back to the store. Because building a reaper would mean he would have to kill hundreds of thousands of humans which would totally be out of character and horribly crappy writing. It would be like in ME3 we find out Anderson was the head of Cerberus all along just stupid b movie writing. However I doubt thats going to happen. Indoctrination is unlikely but possible seeing how the Terminator seemed to be completely destroyed at the end of the game. And if people do get indoctrinated I'll just kill them and have TIM send another team until we learn how to deal with indoctrination and so on and so forth.

[Abispa]

In LotSB, the Shadow Broker says he plans to use the Normandy's IFF drive so he can go through the Omega 4 relay to retrieve salvage from the Collector base I blew up. This leaves the door open for two amazing similar Cerberus disasters no matter what decision you make. In one the base is still there with a Cerberus disaster, or there's a Cerberus base somewhere that has Collector salvage to create the Cerberus disaster.

[Pro_Consul]

chapa3 wrote...

The reapers are part machine. If they want to hack their way into the extranet, it would not be that difficult.

Yeah, but presumably any qualified science team you could pick to investigate the Collector base would still have plenty of info not found on the extranet which you would not want to hand over to your enemy. But an even more basic concern than whatever secrets they might have is this: why would you waste perfectly good scientists by deliberately exposing them to indoctrination when you know they will be heart and soul in your enemy's hands LONG before they learn anything of value to you? Even disregarding the inhumanity of dooming those people to that fate, it is still that many fewer scientists you will have working to find ways to fight the Reapers.

chapa3 wrote...

To be honest, I don't think the reapers would be defeated through open combat.

You are probably right. By why give up them any advantage you can avoid? With extinction for every known race in the galaxy hanging in the balance you have to deny the enemy every advantage you possibly can. And sending scientists into that base to be indoctrinated might just give the Reapers some small advantage, while it cannot possibly yield any benefits to you. It seems a simple equation to me. Risk of indoctrination ~=100%; chance of salvaging tech without/before indoctrination ~=0%. Risk outweighs reward by a near infinite margin.

[Ymladdych]

Modifié par Ymladdych, 28 septembre 2011 - 01:38 .

[chapa3]

Normally, I would say "use a controlled experiment" and keep quarantine measures. Sadly, Cerberus need's work on that.

[Ryzaki]

Ymladdych wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
There are pragmatic and sensible and indeed survalistic! reasons for blowing it up.

Agreed.  There are cogent arguments for both sides...it's just a matter of which ones you personally find to be the most persuasive.  In cases like this, where the logic isn't overwhelmingly in favor of one choice over another, I fall back to roleplay, and my Shepard had a strong emotional bias against keeping the Collector ship around.

Yay! You're one of the few people I've met who've said that! I could hug you but I won't because I don't know how you'd take my vitual hug!  

I have one Shep I believe that wasn't too paranoid or too wary of Derperus or unconfident in the data EDI found to blow it up.

[chapa3]

Abispa wrote...

 In one the base is still there with a Cerberus disaster, or there's a Cerberus base somewhere that has Collector salvage to create the Cerberus disaster.

More reason to implode the base. Either path leads to a similar byproduct, and in the case of imploding, Cerberus has to shell out more credits. Helps stimulate the galactic economy.

[jbblue05]

Ymladdych wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...
People are playing Mass Effect like they are going to win no matter what they do and not playing Mass Efffect like its a fight for survival

Eh.  There really are individuals who refuse to pull out all the moral stops, even when survival is at stake.  Sometimes they're rewarded for their altruism - many times they are not.  Whether they're rewarded this time around remains to be seen, but I'm not the type of person who assumes to know the reasons why people play the way they do.  Maybe they really believe their Shepard would draw that line...independent of the game's outcome.

Theri have been plenty of save/destroy CB threads and its obvious some people are thinking "its optional, so its not needed to defeat the Reapers.

I'm not saying its the only reason, like some people fear Cerberus more than the Reapers or want to keep their alien masters in charge, or want to give it to an organization with a 'paragon alignment' etc.

Bioware forces Shepard to be pro-destroy the base to a degree.  Even if you keep it Shepard is like "this is wrong, but we have to do this" and Shepard is hostile towards TIm during the debrief and your entire squad hates your guts

[Pro_Consul]

James2912 wrote...

I kept the base and if TIM builds a reaper in ME3 I am going to take the game back to the store. Because building a reaper would mean he would have to kill hundreds of thousands of humans which would totally be out of character and horribly crappy writing.

I agree with you 50%. It would indeed be crappy writing if TIM created a human reaper in ME3. But it would not be at all out of character for him to try, provided he was able to convince himself that the resulting reaper would be under his control. After all, when has TIM ever been shy about sacrificing (murdering) innocents in pursuit of his goals. He is utterly convinced that he knows best and that whatever he decides to do is justified because it is intended to serve humanity's long term prosperity. Under such delusions there is no atrocity that is beyond him so long as it can be rationalized as serving his goals.

[Ymladdych]

Modifié par Ymladdych, 28 septembre 2011 - 01:38 .

[Arijharn]

Ryzaki wrote...

I am so sick of people saying that blowing up the base means your playing it like your going to win regardless.

There are pragmatic and sensible and indeed survalistic! reasons for blowing it up.

HOW. ARE. THEY. PRAGMATIC?

You know jack and squat really about the Reapers. There's bits and pieces of Sovereign apparently out there or whatever, but certainly not whole and even if they are 'whole' then having 'more' leads to a better set of sample data, and the best place to get the data is in the basement of the CB.

You know that current technology in not sufficient to breech Reaper defenses (EDI tells you as such, and you have no real reason to distrust it) because current 'Dreadnought firepower' is insufficient. We do not yet know how replicatable the Thannix is in terms of outfitting fleets with it, and if it is relatively cheap, then would it not be better (in a hedge-your-bets mentality at least) to go for more bang for buck by co-opting Collector technology back in your base.

Another thing to consider is this; if you take a vase and break it, you can't put it back together exactly how it was, by destroying it (and frankly, you have no real reason to other than you fear it) then you are perpetrating a colossally bad decision.

Destroying it means that you have an x larger chance of completely annihiliating something that could be of vital importance, and of course you'd never know about it if you did destroy it.

Pitching fears of what may be Cerberus idealogy against what we know about the dangers of the Reapers and the threat of what they can do (and have probably done at least 740 times if we are going by the fact that they've existed at least for 37 million years and allegedly wiped out a civilisation every 50,000) is quite frankly, well, stupid. It doesn't add up as a commiserate threat, although the understandable threat of what Cerberus can do may make it somewhat risky. However, can anyone really quantifiably measure the risk to the entire galaxy against what could be Cerberus ambitions as worth it? If you do, then you have no business whatsoever about weighing the Illusive Man's 'morality' when you're quite happy to see everyone dead because it offends your sensibilities.

[Ryzaki]

chapa3 wrote...

Normally, I would say "use a controlled experiment" and keep quarantine measures. Sadly, Cerberus need's work on that.

I wish that we had an option to keep the base but hand it to the galatic community and armies as a whole (of course this is after the Reapers are shown to the council and they get of their asses) the races would be so busy trying to one up one another cases of indoctrination would be caught on quickly (or plainly made up so one group doesn't get left behind. I can already hear the Turian councilor screaming that the humans indocrintate the quickest and need to be shifted out).  

Edit: *looks at above post and laughs* Ah insults. Those always make your point more valid. 

Yes because we totally didn't remake good old Sovie's weapons from his little reaper bits.   

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 février 2011 - 06:34 .

[Hanar Shakespeare]

I chose to destroy it. Felt Illusive Man was dreaming of human dominance through war. I also felt, regardless of the people left to inspect and manage the ship, Reapers would quickly take it back if they wanted to.

To me, all that matters is what Bioware chooses Shephard did.

[Abispa]

What really bugs me is that there's always one character with me at the end who agrees with TIM that we need to keep the base, but when I do keep the base and visit that character after the credit, he or she tells me how disappointed he or she is with me.

[James2912]

Arijharn wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I am so sick of people saying that blowing up the base means your playing it like your going to win regardless.

There are pragmatic and sensible and indeed survalistic! reasons for blowing it up.

HOW. ARE. THEY. PRAGMATIC?

You know jack and squat really about the Reapers. There's bits and pieces of Sovereign apparently out there or whatever, but certainly not whole and even if they are 'whole' then having 'more' leads to a better set of sample data, and the best place to get the data is in the basement of the CB.

You know that current technology in not sufficient to breech Reaper defenses (EDI tells you as such, and you have no real reason to distrust it) because current 'Dreadnought firepower' is insufficient. We do not yet know how replicatable the Thannix is in terms of outfitting fleets with it, and if it is relatively cheap, then would it not be better (in a hedge-your-bets mentality at least) to go for more bang for buck by co-opting Collector technology back in your base.

Another thing to consider is this; if you take a vase and break it, you can't put it back together exactly how it was, by destroying it (and frankly, you have no real reason to other than you fear it) then you are perpetrating a colossally bad decision.

Destroying it means that you have an x larger chance of completely annihiliating something that could be of vital importance, and of course you'd never know about it if you did destroy it.

Pitching fears of what may be Cerberus idealogy against what we know about the dangers of the Reapers and the threat of what they can do (and have probably done at least 740 times if we are going by the fact that they've existed at least for 37 million years and allegedly wiped out a civilisation every 50,000) is quite frankly, well, stupid. It doesn't add up as a commiserate threat, although the understandable threat of what Cerberus can do may make it somewhat risky. However, can anyone really quantifiably measure the risk to the entire galaxy against what could be Cerberus ambitions as worth it? If you do, then you have no business whatsoever about weighing the Illusive Man's 'morality' when you're quite happy to see everyone dead because it offends your sensibilities.

That is why I save the base. Paragon or Renegade.

[Pro_Consul]

jbblue05 wrote...

Bioware forces Shepard to be pro-destroy the base to a degree.  Even if you keep it Shepard is like "this is wrong, but we have to do this" and Shepard is hostile towards TIm during the debrief and your entire squad hates your guts

But I thought that was reasonable, linking destruction of the base to the paragon angle. After all, there are two primary things that base is built to do:

1. Render millions of sapient people into goo.

2. Give birth to baby Reapers.

Either of those alone is enough reason to get a Paragon worked up about allowing the base to exist. Both taken together should have a full-para Shep foaming at the mouth and wishing for a bigger bomb to blow it up with.

[Ryzaki]

Abispa wrote...

What really bugs me is that there's always one character with me at the end who agrees with TIM that we need to keep the base, but when I do keep the base and visit that character after the credit, he or she tells me how disappointed he or she is with me.

That I felt was stupid. Why on earth would they flip flop so fast? People who really should've had no trouble with keeping the base: Mordin, Morinth, Garrus, Miranda

And yet for some reason they don't? That boggles the mind. 

I could understand Legion (after all his stance is that the Geth refused to use Reaper tech and wanted to build their own). But the rest of them make no sense. 

[James2912]

Abispa wrote...

What really bugs me is that there's always one character with me at the end who agrees with TIM that we need to keep the base, but when I do keep the base and visit that character after the credit, he or she tells me how disappointed he or she is with me.

Yeah the way they did the squadmates reactions pisses me off its inconsistent and for some out of character!