803 réponses à ce sujet

[Rekkampum]

DPSSOC wrote...

Bluko wrote...
Also not to pick on those saved the base, but if talk to your crew afterwards all of them will question your judgement about not blowing it up.

Which is weird cause I'm pretty sure Mordin and Legion actually encourage you to keep it in the moment.

That's what's funny about scripted events like that one. You talk to them afterwards, and practically everyone - especially Legion - suggests that keeping it was not a good idea. Which is what I didn't like about how the characters reacted. 

[Zulu_DFA]

thurmanator692 wrote...

okay after some time thinking, I've come to my conclusion. I don't like Cerberus. I REALLY don't like them, say what you will, but my opinion on that wont change. that said, I have come to support keeping the base. why you ask?
Because it is the right thing to do. Condmning trillions to die for the sake of personal honor (I don't wan't to hear it, thats what morality is) is the very height of arrogance, and borderline god-complex. just who is this one man/woman to decide the fate of the galaxy? Morals aside, it's better to have it and not need it. there is a very good chance that cerberus will try to over use there newfound power, but luckilly, there is a certain badass on a badass ship, crewed by equally badass team members to keep them in line.
In conclusion
Keep the base, use it to even the odds with the reapers, keep the crazies at cerberus in line so they don't go Emporor Palpatine on the galaxy
My opinion of the right thing to do.

Unbiased opinion? Who could have thought... [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

[Zulu_DFA]

I'll just say that if it was the Council (which I despise) to be getting the Base and not the organization I feel political proximity to, so to say, I'd still kept the Base, even though I wouldn't of course feel as happy about the secondary considerations.

[Ieldra]

jeweledleah wrote...
the issue I have with your arguments is that you pretty much fall into the oposite of luddite - you think all technology is good, all science is neccesary and all methods of study are fine as long as they result in progress.

I admit I am a techno-progressivist, and yes I think science is necessary. Technology, on the other hand, is neutral, only the use it is put to can be good or bad. And I definitely don't think methods of development don't matter.

we're not just keeping technology for study.  we're keeping it in hands of someone who has proven, even without the aditional book information that THEY cannot be trusted with technology, not unless you are ok with questionable techniques and live sentient subject experementation.

The argument you replied to was made in answer to the argument "I destroy the base because Reaper technology is dangerous." There was no mention of TIM and Cerberus in that argument, so I did not refer to it in my reply. I maintain that purely on its own, without the Cerberus angle, the fact that Reaper technology is dangerous is no sufficient reason to destroy the base, but that it is - again without considering the Cerberus angle for now - desirable to study that technology.

I maintain my stance for keeping the base even when I put Cerberus into the picture, but of course the above argument is not enough to support that stance. Were we not in a war for survival against the Reapers, and I only had the alternatives of giving the base to TIM or destroying it, then yes, I admit destroying the thing could be advisable. But that's not where we stand. We need the edge the base might give us, we can't afford to squander the chance of learning more about the Reapers by studying the base. See below....

is that gun our best chance of survival?  no.  is it our only chance of survival?  no, its not.  its just one weapon in an arsenal of weapons.  It may end up being equivalent of cain.  but you can win the battle without cain, it will just take a bit more effort.

That's a really big assumption you're making here. Mere "effort" will be enough to win a war against a technologically superior enemy? That may be the case if the enemy just has superior hand-held firearms, let's say assault rifles against your pistols. But that analogy fails. The situation we find ourselves in is that we have guns, but our enemy has tanks powered by fusion reactors, and its forces don't need to eat.

My point is exactly that we cannot afford to assume that "more effort" will win us the war. Look at WWII as an example. The Japanese were certainly not lacking in effort and motivation, but the Allies had the better war economy - and the nukes. And there's this small consideration to add: If we assume that and we're wrong, then we won't have a second chance. We will not just have lost a war, we will all be dead or transformed into mindless slaves. So.....to come back to my original claim: we can't afford to assume we won't need the base to survive.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 mars 2011 - 09:29 .

[Asheer_Khan]

Ieldra2 wrote...
we can't afford to assume we won't need the base to survive.

Isn't such claim a little absolute?

[Ieldra]

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
we can't afford to assume we won't need the base to survive.

Isn't such claim a little absolute?

*sigh*
Please note that I do not say that we will find anything in the base that will help. I also do not say that we will need the base to win.

What I do say is that we're grasping at straws for a means against the Reapers and we cannot afford to let any chance slide to study their technology. We cannot afford the assumption that we will find another way, because if we are wrong, we will all be dead. We might be all dead anyway,  but if we don't use every single chance to learn about our enemies, then if we fail it will be our own fault, and humanity can posthumously collect its Darwin award. Extinction by stupidity. Reapers win. Next species, please.

Also refer to the risk calculation I posted on page 29.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 mars 2011 - 01:33 .

[Dean_the_Young]

jeweledleah wrote...

assumptions make a fool of you and me. I didn't say I was leaving, I said I was done with you trolls. no wonder you're having hard time seeing beyond your nose.

And that period of 'being done with us' didn't even last that long.

Le sigh. I had such high hopes.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 mars 2011 - 01:44 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Rekkampum wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Bluko wrote...
Also not to pick on those saved the base, but if talk to your crew afterwards all of them will question your judgement about not blowing it up.

Which is weird cause I'm pretty sure Mordin and Legion actually encourage you to keep it in the moment.

That's what's funny about scripted events like that one. You talk to them afterwards, and practically everyone - especially Legion - suggests that keeping it was not a good idea. Which is what I didn't like about how the characters reacted. 

The reasons they don't like keeping it, however, aren't based around it's ineffectiveness, safety, or counterproductivity. They are based around trepidation of what the Illusive Man might do with it... which is based on their belief that he has something to do things with.

It's a negative tone, but not for the reasons many people object for (the validity of being able to get any gain from the base).

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 mars 2011 - 01:46 .

[STG]

Let's face it. It's a reaper making machine. Cerberus, Council, Alliance, Rachni, Krogans... I wouldn't trust anyone with something like that.

For the sake of "Advancement" and "Survival" Cerberus would start pumping out reapers, it's not a question of 'if' but 'when'. And for the sake of "Protection", "Peace" and "Galactic Stability" Council would do the same thing.

I wanted to save the base because understanding the construction process ensures we can exploit any weakness reapers may have. However after the victory another "Cold War" would start where strength of your fleet will depend on how many reapers you have. Humans have plenty of Wilsons that will sell production details to our enemies and galaxy has plenty of Udinas who will do anything for power.

Destroying the base on the other hand is a heavy risk, very heavy because without knowledge of how reapers function we might not win. But if somehow we do prize is maintaining our way of life.

[jeweledleah]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The argument you replied to was made in answer to the argument "I destroy the base because Reaper technology is dangerous." There was no mention of TIM and Cerberus in that argument, so I did not refer to it in my reply. I maintain that purely on its own, without the Cerberus angle, the fact that Reaper technology is dangerous is no sufficient reason to destroy the base, but that it is - again without considering the Cerberus angle for now - desirable to study that technology.

I maintain my stance for keeping the base even when I put Cerberus into the picture, but of course the above argument is not enough to support that stance. Were we not in a war for survival against the Reapers, and I only had the alternatives of giving the base to TIM or destroying it, then yes, I admit destroying the thing could be advisable. But that's not where we stand. We need the edge the base might give us, we can't afford to squander the chance of learning more about the Reapers by studying the base. See below....

reaper technology IS dangerous.  even more so in wrong hands.  I still maintain that we don NOT 100% need the endge the base may give us, becasue we already have other working options, we just need to expand on them instead of starting on completely fresh research.  I'm not talking about winning on practicaly effort alone (though god knows its exactly what russians did in multiple wars).  I'm talking about exploring other scientific and political options.

My point is exactly that we cannot afford to assume that "more effort" will win us the war. Look at WWII as an example. The Japanese were certainly not lacking in effort and motivation, but the Allies had the better war economy - and the nukes. And there's this small consideration to add: If we assume that and we're wrong, then we won't have a second chance. We will not just have lost a war, we will all be dead or transformed into mindless slaves. So.....to come back to my original claim: we can't afford to assume we won't need the base to survive.

since you mention japanese - keeping collector base could be kinda like droping those bombs in hiroshima and nagasaki...except we drop them on ourselves.  and will suffer effects of it for a long long time.  its not a 100% chance, but its a definitive possibility. its a risk that should be concidered.  Did Japan ever have a chance against USA?  honestly, I don't think so.  much smaller country with much smaller force and no way to actualy come in and advance  - the only thing they could do is try to bomb a few strategic objectives, which is what they did.  but with no way to hold them with no way for a full scale invasion and ability to hold what they conquered?  even if they had tried to bomb USA back, even if they could - they still would have lost.  If galactic civilization vs. reapers was like USA vs Japan, then the only option we have really is to do like protheans, hide away the best and the brightest and start researching countermeasures for the next sycle once this one has blown over, because we're sure not winning it.

but reapers against galactic civilisation are more like Orcs against Helm's Deep.  humans never should have won that battle, they shoudln't have even been able to hold off as long as they did, let alone win so decisevely even with assistance.  but they did.  becasue this is heroic epic fiction and unlike real life - we'll find another way actualy does work here.  and my shepards being fictional characters living in a fictional world have a luxury of making less clear cut choices and win.

[Dean_the_Young]

STG wrote...

Let's face it. It's a reaper making machine. Cerberus, Council, Alliance, Rachni, Krogans... I wouldn't trust anyone with something like that.

For the sake of "Advancement" and "Survival" Cerberus would start pumping out reapers, it's not a question of 'if' but 'when'. And for the sake of "Protection", "Peace" and "Galactic Stability" Council would do the same thing.

Why?

Pumping out Reapers, besides beyond the ability of a few-hundred-strong human group with none of the tech mastery, absolute loyalty, or security trump cards that failed the Collectors, is also a darn stupid thing to do. You can get far better gains with far less needless Reaper-making.

You aren't simply paying more for less, you'd have to aggressively fight and beat up other people for the privilage.

I wanted to save the base because understanding the construction process ensures we can exploit any weakness reapers may have. However after the victory another "Cold War" would start where strength of your fleet will depend on how many reapers you have. Humans have plenty of Wilsons that will sell production details to our enemies and galaxy has plenty of Udinas who will do anything for power.

The Cold War was actually one of the greatest periods of subdued violence in human history. Besides the fact that, well, power competitions happen regardless, you're taking one of the overall most beneficial periods of human history, in which there were no major global wars and multiple social and technological revolutions benefited the planet, and making it as a horrible thing.

Moreover, you're going to have the exact same post-Reaper power rebalancing after the Reapers regardless, simply because the Reapers will kill great swarths of populations, will radically reshape the galactic balance of power, and in defeat their technology is going to be sought by everyone.

There is no choice about preventing anyone from gaining Reaper technology. The only aspect the base decides is who will get a head start.

Destroying the base on the other hand is a heavy risk, very heavy because without knowledge of how reapers function we might not win. But if somehow we do prize is maintaining our way of life.

Our way of life is already going to change. It's changing now, and it's going to change when the Reapers take a chunk out of the galaxy, and it's going to keep changing when scavengers scrounge for pieces of Reaper technology for advantages regardless of whether you kept the base or not.

[Dean_the_Young]

jeweledleah wrote...

reaper technology IS dangerous.  even more so in wrong hands.  I still maintain that we don NOT 100% need the endge the base may give us, becasue we already have other working options, we just need to expand on them instead of starting on completely fresh research.  I'm not talking about winning on practicaly effort alone (though god knows its exactly what russians did in multiple wars).  I'm talking about exploring other scientific and political options.

The Russians didn't win on effort. The Russians won by burying the enemy in corpses or snow, depending on the season. Since we really can't exactly overwhelm the Reapers with peasant infantry, we can't exactly claim that either.

What other scientific and political options are blocked by the use of Reaper technology? What other scientific and political options are as effective as hundreds of years of advanced technology?

since you mention japanese - keeping collector base could be kinda like droping those bombs in hiroshima and nagasaki...except we drop them on ourselves. and will suffer effects of it for a long long time. 

That point's almost as bad as the capitalization that went into it.

No, giving Cerberus technology is not equivalent to just nuking two of your own cities. Nor were Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffering enduring radiation of the popular imagination: they suffered the same sort of enduring scars of any city that got bombed to pieces during the war.

its not a 100% chance, but its a definitive possibility. its a risk that should be concidered.  Did Japan ever have a chance against USA?  honestly, I don't think so.  much smaller country with much smaller force and no way to actualy come in and advance  - the only thing they could do is try to bomb a few strategic objectives, which is what they did.  but with no way to hold them with no way for a full scale invasion and ability to hold what they conquered?  even if they had tried to bomb USA back, even if they could - they still would have lost.  If galactic civilization vs. reapers was like USA vs Japan, then the only option we have really is to do like protheans, hide away the best and the brightest and start researching countermeasures for the next sycle once this one has blown over, because we're sure not winning it.

but reapers against galactic civilisation are more like Orcs against Helm's Deep.  humans never should have won that battle, they shoudln't have even been able to hold off as long as they did, let alone win so decisevely even with assistance.  but they did.  becasue this is heroic epic fiction and unlike real life - we'll find another way actualy does work here.  and my shepards being fictional characters living in a fictional world have a luxury of making less clear cut choices and win.

And we're back to metagaming.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 09 mars 2011 - 04:36 .

[STG]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Why?

Pumping out Reapers, besides beyond the ability of a few-hundred-strong human group with none of the tech mastery, absolute loyalty, or security trump cards that failed the Collectors, is also a darn stupid thing to do. You can get far better gains with far less needless Reaper-making.

You aren't simply paying more for less, you'd have to aggressively fight and beat up other people for the privilage.

Reapers are the most advanced and poweful weapons in existance. Why wouldn't those who can, make them? And even if our kind may think that the price is too high, Batarians, Council or someone else may not feel the same way. When they make one, we have no choice but to try and balance the power levels by doing the same or risk being destroyed. All it takes is one organization or race to start the snowball effect and before you know it, galaxy is crawling with reapers.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Cold War was actually one of the greatest periods of subdued violence in human history. Besides the fact that, well, power competitions happen regardless, you're taking one of the overall most beneficial periods of human history, in which there were no major global wars and multiple social and technological revolutions benefited the planet, and making it as a horrible thing.

Moreover, you're going to have the exact same post-Reaper power rebalancing after the Reapers regardless, simply because the Reapers will kill great swarths of populations, will radically reshape the galactic balance of power, and in defeat their technology is going to be sought by everyone.

There is no choice about preventing anyone from gaining Reaper technology. The only aspect the base decides is who will get a head start.

Cold War resulted in huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and one incident would've been enough to destroy us all. That is why I used it as an example. Currently in ME universe dreadnoughts are used in that same way. But with knowledge on how to create reapers that would change and factions would race eachother on who can make more.

Gaining reaper tech is not what's important. We already have and use that thanks to Sovereign. We're talking about knowledge on how to make reapers and that is what matters. The moment we gain the ability to make them is when they can take over once again and restart the cycle.

Modifié par STG, 09 mars 2011 - 05:13 .

[Almostfaceman]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Asheer_Khan wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
we can't afford to assume we won't need the base to survive.

Isn't such claim a little absolute?

*sigh*
Please note that I do not say that we will find anything in the base that will help. I also do not say that we will need the base to win.

What I do say is that we're grasping at straws for a means against the Reapers and we cannot afford to let any chance slide to study their technology. We cannot afford the assumption that we will find another way, because if we are wrong, we will all be dead. We might be all dead anyway,  but if we don't use every single chance to learn about our enemies, then if we fail it will be our own fault, and humanity can posthumously collect its Darwin award. Extinction by stupidity. Reapers win. Next species, please.

Also refer to the risk calculation I posted on page 29.

Uh, no, at the point in the story where we can save or destroy the Collector base, we most definitely are not grasping at straws.  If you must maintain "straws", the Citadel is one helluvah big straw waiting to be studied in-depth (which it has not yet).  The plot conveniently stacks up some scientific info you can take to the Council/news agencies to make your case for further keeper/Citadel study.  The scientific data is from scanning the keepers - friends in the press include Emily Wong.  Nice and neat simple storytelling.

*edits* In fact the story makes the rather incredible point that most Reaper technology (the citadel and mass relays) have not been studied as closely as they could have been all this time due to some rather odd complacence (to us short-lived humans).  This point is made when talking to the salarian who wants to study the keepers/ the matriarch bartender who notes when she wants the Asari to make their own relays gets "the blue laughed off her ass*.  There is a treasure-trove of Reaper technology to study just waiting for some impetus.

This is further reinforced possibly by the next DLC and the last Cerberus Network daily news bit where studies of the Mass Relays are cracking open the "the Protheans built them" theory.  *edits* Not something I considering when I made my base choices since I didn't know about it - just pointing it out.

I make my points about trusting/not trusting Cerberus in some of my earlier posts. 

Your point that technology is neutral - erm, I don't think I agree with that.  For instance, the ****'s developed technology to exterminate the Jews (and anyone else they wanted) in a rather quick fashion.  I can easily compare myself to a soldier coming upon a concentration camp when Shepard comes across this facet of the Collector base.  In that emotional state, I think considering one's options and choosing to keep the technology to liquify millions of being out the hands of an ruthless unknown (TiM) is a viable one when I can study the Citadel and other Reaper artifacts.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 09 mars 2011 - 05:47 .

[STG]

Would be funny if the keepers are constructing a reaper somewhere inside the citadel.

[Dean_the_Young]

STG wrote...

Reapers are the most advanced and poweful weapons in existance.Why wouldn't those who can, make them? And even if our kind may think that the price is too high, Batarians, Council or someone else may not feel the same way. When they make one, we have no choice but to try and balance the power levels by doing the same or risk being destroyed. All it takes is one organization or race to start the snowball effect and before you know it, galaxy is crawling with reapers.

No, Reaper weapons are the most advanced weapons in existence. The entire Reaper itself is unnecessary, and undesirable: Reapers are not a cost-efficient weapons platform. They never claimed to be, nor needed to be. The whole is not required for the sum of the parts.

You don't need smoothies to reproduce Reaper technology. We see this multiple times: the Protheans certainly didn't know about smoothies when they made a Mass Relay. The Turians don't need smoothies to make Thanix cannons. Cerberus didn't need smoothies to make more IFFs. The Reapers decision to use species to make Reapers to  commit genocide is a white elephant project for ideological reasons. The Reapers who don't care or need that sort of efficiency of economy.

To anyone with limited means? To anyone with a budget? To anyone who actually wants efficiency of design and warfare? There's no reason to make a Reaper, a giant gestalt AI ship, when you can mass produce Reaper guns, Reaper shields, and Reaper tech without the need for kidnapping a couple dozen million people first per unit.

Cold War resulted in huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and one incident would've been enough to destroy us all. That is why I used it as an example. Currently in ME universe dreadnoughts are used in that same way. But with knowledge on how to create reapers that would change and factions would race eachother on who can make more.

And yet, we didn't, and world deaths from warfare plummeted during the period.

Your proliferation fears are already present, and Reaper tech proliferation will occur regardless.

Gaining reaper tech is not what's important. We already have and use that thanks to Sovereign. We're talking about knowledge on how to make reapers and that is what matters. The moment we gain the ability to make them is when they can take over once again and restart the cycle.

If anyone decides to repeat the Reaper cycle, it will because they came to conclusions similar to the Reapers, or because they're already crazy. Not because they have Reaper construction technology, which can eventually be developed regardless.

Making Reapers is in no way a requisite requirement, or enabler, of establishing a galactic genocide cycle.

[Rekkampum]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Rekkampum wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Bluko wrote...
Also not to pick on those saved the base, but if talk to your crew afterwards all of them will question your judgement about not blowing it up.

Which is weird cause I'm pretty sure Mordin and Legion actually encourage you to keep it in the moment.

That's what's funny about scripted events like that one. You talk to them afterwards, and practically everyone - especially Legion - suggests that keeping it was not a good idea. Which is what I didn't like about how the characters reacted. 

The reasons they don't like keeping it, however, aren't based around it's ineffectiveness, safety, or counterproductivity. They are based around trepidation of what the Illusive Man might do with it... which is based on their belief that he has something to do things with.

It's a negative tone, but not for the reasons many people object for (the validity of being able to get any gain from the base).

You're starting to troll the topic. I've said that my opinions have nothing to do with the overall effectiveness of the CB. Stop conflating my comments. Please?

[Almostfaceman]

STG wrote...

Would be funny if the keepers are constructing a reaper somewhere inside the citadel.

Yes it would heh heh.

[Almostfaceman]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If anyone decides to repeat the Reaper cycle, it will because they came to conclusions similar to the Reapers, or because they're already crazy. Not because they have Reaper construction technology, which can eventually be developed regardless.

Making Reapers is in no way a requisite requirement, or enabler, of establishing a galactic genocide cycle.

That would go against the observation that completed Reaper tech enacts galactic genocidal cycles.  Though I do agree that Reapers are not required for galactic genocide - there are definitely other means.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 09 mars 2011 - 07:00 .

[jeweledleah]

Almostfaceman wrote...

STG wrote...

Would be funny if the keepers are constructing a reaper somewhere inside the citadel.

Yes it would heh heh.

pretty sure protheans lived long enough to reprogram them not to obey the reaper signals anymore, seeing as it was the reason for sovereign directly plugging into citadel.  and speaking of keeper research its really somethign that should be pursued, in conjunction with the data we get from vigil.  might not seem like much but reprograming beings that tend to blow up if you so much as look at them wrong?  this tech has some very serious potential when it comes to anti-reaper measures.

[Dean_the_Young]

Rekkampum wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Rekkampum wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Bluko wrote...
Also not to pick on those saved the base, but if talk to your crew afterwards all of them will question your judgement about not blowing it up.

Which is weird cause I'm pretty sure Mordin and Legion actually encourage you to keep it in the moment.

That's what's funny about scripted events like that one. You talk to them afterwards, and practically everyone - especially Legion - suggests that keeping it was not a good idea. Which is what I didn't like about how the characters reacted. 

The reasons they don't like keeping it, however, aren't based around it's ineffectiveness, safety, or counterproductivity. They are based around trepidation of what the Illusive Man might do with it... which is based on their belief that he has something to do things with.

It's a negative tone, but not for the reasons many people object for (the validity of being able to get any gain from the base).

You're starting to troll the topic. I've said that my opinions have nothing to do with the overall effectiveness of the CB. Stop conflating my comments. Please?

Since I am not conflating your comment, but was directly refering to the crew mates concerns in game, and the position of many people in general. Arguments which have, repeatedly, been raised in this thread.

That isn't trolling, that's a relevant part of this topic. It isn't even saying that you're one of those people: it's simply using a point you brought up to make another one.

If I said '**** whoever, they deserve to be crucified', that would be trolling. Continuing a point you raised ain't.

[Dean_the_Young]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Though I do agree that Reapers are not required for galactic genocide - there are definitely other means.

That was my point. If you are inclined towards galactic genocide cycles, you can do it with means far shorter than making Reapers.