803 réponses à ce sujet

[nevar00]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

I didn't say they wouldn't get anything of value from it.

It either has something of value or it doesn't. Anything that gives Cerberus an edge (or anyone else) helps us against the Reapers, even if only in a small way.

Frankly though, I think you are being arrogant. How do you know if the base has anything of value or not? You blew it up, so you won't ever get to find out.

...no, something can be valueable and not be any help against the Reapers.  For example, TIM finds out how to indoctrinate people and have control of them: once the Reapers are gone, he takes over the galaxy.

I fail to see how I'm being arrogant.  I didn't say I know if there is anything useful or not: I just believe that there really won't be, outside of learning how to turn people into smoothies.  And since I don't trust Cerberus with any technology they get out of it, and since I see very little help if any coming out of it to face the Reapers, I blew it up (in some of my files, I did keep it in others).

And actually now that I'm remembering it, it turns out keeping the Base may have done more harm than good.  In Retribution Cerberus implants some guy with Reaper tech: he becomes indocrinated, and then the Reapers use him to break free, gather information on us, and nearly take out an Alliance biotics base.  Bad or not, I'm pretty sure the books are still considered canon. 

[brightblueink]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Which is it though? Is Cerberus gonna find some big weapon they can conquer the galaxy with or are they going to kill themselves? Pick one.

This seems like a silly argument. We have no way of knowing until the game comes out either way. Anything we say is pure speculation, so I don't know if we really have to "pick one." Both options are entirely possible, as are others.

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

 If you were wrong about the rachni queen Noveria could have been destroyed. If you are still wrong about her any number of colonies could get destroyed.

Exactly, nothing gets destroyed if you save her and she sides with you.  You're making an assumption if you think either one is guaranteed and that's why the decision is about making your best guess.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Then we can still blow it up.

The servants of the Reapers, blowing up their master's base? That's a massive assumption and the evidence is very strong against that (they likely wouldn't know they were indoctrinated until it was too late).  If we have to come back and blow it up then it's extra work and we might not be so lucky this time (especially if having the base captured was part of the plan).

Saphra Deden wrote...

Maybe the Pope poops in the forest?

Also I doubt Shepard and TIM thought that was easy. The Collectors sure tried hard to kill you. Regardless, you are making excuses again.

"What if the base is a trap?"

Ok, here is my question: "What if you can't defeat the Reapers without the base?"

You sure you want to play the "what if" game?

That's the point isn't it, making an assumption is when you don't consider the "what if" and say "this will happen" without sufficient evidence to prove it.  If you can't defeat the Reapers without the base then you're doomed if you blew it up and if the Reapers will win by you keeping the base then you're doomed if you keep it, both options could lead to doom and there's no way to be sure which is right.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Which is how I know that your position is fundamentally flawed.

You are wrong about that, you should try considering other possibilities rather than relying on assumption and the idea that your idea of "logic" is correct.  I've presented evidence in favour of both sides, you're merely relying on the idea that your guesses about what will happen are actually what will happen.  What will you say if ME3 shows that keeping the collector base caused problems?

[nevar00]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

...no, something can be valueable and not be any help against the Reapers.  For example, TIM finds out how to indoctrinate people and have control of them: once the Reapers are gone, he takes over the galaxy.

That kind of knowledge about indoctrination would be helpful against the Reapers.

Which is it though? Is Cerberus gonna find some big weapon they can conquer the galaxy with or are they going to kill themselves? Pick one.

Knowing that he can indocrinate people isn't going to necessarily help anyone find a way to stop indoctrination.  It was just a random example anyway.

Cerberus could potentially find a big weapon to conquer the galaxy or create a huge mess (which they ended up doing) or find some sort of deus ex machina computer program that will wipe out all the Reapers: I don't know, why would I have to pick one?  Besides, they could always find a big weapon to take over the galaxy that results in getting themselves destroyed: by Shepard perhaps.  Like in ME 1: the experiments on Kohoku and his squad didn't care any trouble themselves, but angered Shepard to the point that you end up destroying several big Cerberus facilities.  

But me pointing out that they were incompetent as well as potentially dangerous were just other reasons as to why I didn't keep the base: like I said I can understand why some people would, and I did a couple times too.  And if you could give the base to the Alliance, that might be a different story.

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

However if she has been lying to you this whole time a lot of damage might be done. You are focusing on what you want to happen and not on what could happen. Let me break it down for you.

You're focussing on what you think I'm saying rather than what I am saying, I said that both options have potential positive and negative consequences not that a particular choice is right and the other is wrong.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Rachni Queen decision:

If you save her the best outcome is that she helps you.
The worst outcome is that she attacks the galaxy again.

If you kill her there is only one outcome: she doesn't help you. Of-course she also can't attack you.

Things are simplified. You have no promise of any great reward but also no great risk. This is not the same as the Collector base though.

The reason it is different is that if the rachni are powerful enough to help you then they are also powerful enough to hurt you. It all hinges of the truthfulness of the rachni queen.

With the Collector base you can take steps to mitigate the worst outcomes. Such as studying it with mechs or watching for indoctrination. If it becomes a problem you can still blow it up.

With the rachni though there is nothing you can do. You just have to hope she was true to her word.

You could still kill the Rachni if they turn on you after you save them, you yourself seem to think it's easy to deal with a collector base gone wrong so why is it impossible to deal with Rachni gone bad? Maybe you should try taking a look at what's being said with a clear mind rather than assuming you are right and that I'm wrong (especially since you've failed to understand what I'm arguing in the first place).

Saphra Deden wrote...

TIM can blow it up remotely.

Maybe he could or maybe he couldn't.  Just because you say he could doesn't make it so.  That's making an assumption.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Oh but it is. You keep inventing completely unfounded what-if's to justify your decision. My decision doesn't require that I make up or invente anything in order to be justified. I defend my position by proposing a specific course of action and how necessary it is. You defend yours by imagining scenarios in which your choice was the right one.

Unfounded means that there's no evidence to support them, there is and I've mentioned it (and there's more than the exampes I did give).  You're still failing to realise that I'm not saying saving the base is wrong and you're also failing to realise that your "what ifs" are no more valid than the ones I mentioned.

I'm interested to know what your answer to my earlier question would be, what would you say if ME3 shows that saving the collector base only causes more problems? For that matter, what would you say if ME3 shows that saving the collector base does help the cause?

Modifié par Smeelia, 02 mars 2011 - 09:59 .

[nevar00]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

Knowing that he can indocrinate people
isn't going to necessarily help anyone find a way to stop
indoctrination.  It was just a random example anyway.

If Cerberus can control indoctrination then they can also prevent it. In order to control it they'd have to understand it.

Not if there isn't a way to prevent it...

[nevar00]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

Not if there isn't a way to prevent it...

If you can control whati t does you can prevent it from doing what the Reapers want. That is a sweet advantage to have in the middle of a Reaper war.

Like I said it was just an example: I didn't mean TIM suddenly being able to control all indoctrinated people, I meant him suddenly having the tools to indoctrinate people himself.  Yes if he could control everyone the Reapers ever indoctrinated, that would be pretty useful.

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Destroying the base is a senseless act.

Except for all those reasons that make it seem sensible, like keeping it away from Cerberus, the possibility that it could be dangerous and the others that have already been mentioned.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Smeelia wrote...

You could still kill the Rachni if they turn on you...

Not without fighting a war first.

While getting to and destroying a base that took a whole lot of effort to get to in the first place and could be defended by a Reaper should be no trouble at all?

Saphra Deden wrote...

It seems to be a logical course of action to me. We already know we can destroy the base. Thus we can still do so if we fear the base is too dangerous to study or if the Reapers are going to re-capture it.

Except you're giving up the opportunity to destroy it and may not get another one if the Reapers have already re-captured it (by force or indoctrination) and if it's a trap then there may be other preparations to overcome that we didn't deal with the first time.

Saphra Deden wrote...

And there isn't, thus my use of the word.

Apart from all those reasons I already gave and you can't disprove.  Feel free to read again or you could just continue to ignore evidence that you disagree with.

[Markinator_123]

I still think destroying the base is retarded. It does surprise me that some paragon players look for appeasement in their decision making not knowing how dangerous that is. I also find the idea of universal unity between the races to be quite laughable. Sure we might all oppose the Reapers and we may fight the fight but we should not looking to be friends with the other races. People seem to forget that foreign policy is based upon SELF-INTEREST. Turians are only looking out for the interests of Turians. Asari are only looking out for the interests of the Asari. You as Shepard, should be looking after the interests of humanity first. You cooperate only when it is going to benefit your nation (humanity). By not doing that, you are a traitor to the human race because you would be placing the interests of the Asari, Turian, etc above your own.

Modifié par Markinator_123, 02 mars 2011 - 10:44 .

[nevar00]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

Like I said it was just an example:

A really badly conceived example that undermined the point you were attempting to make. Why not give it another shot?

I still am not seeing how it undermines my point: Cerberus finds out a way to indoctrinate people themselves but not a way to prevent it.  They descovered something dangerous that wouldn't really help against the Reapers: the point I was trying to make.

Everyone has to ask the "what-ifs".  You're saying what if there is something to help against the Reapers on board, and what if Cerberus does nothing evil with it or screw up in some manner (which again... they did). 

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I'm going to ask you again: do you want to play the "what-if?" game? If you do then just say so. I reccomend against it though because it won't work in your favor.

Again: remote detonation.

Are you doing that deliberately? You use something that is a "what if" after saying that you don't think they're important.  Both sides are "what if" scenarios since we can't know what will happen for sure we can only guess, that was my whole point.

Saphra Deden wrote...

Neither you nor anyone else who advocates destruction have presented any compelling evidence in favor of your position. All you offer are what-ifs.

Again, my position is that both are valid options with reasons to support them and I've given reasons for both, you're arguing the wrong point.  All you offer yourself are "what ifs" like "what if we find galaxy saving tech" or "what if destroying the base destroys our only chance", there's no more evidence that suggests there is tech than there is evidence to suggest the base is a trap and there are many other possibilities with supporting evidence.

If you're happy that you've given enough evidence in favour of your point, I'm happy that I've given enough evidence in favour of mine so I'll gladly agree to disagree and leave what is written to speak for itself unless you have more to add.

[nevar00]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

I still am not seeing how it undermines my point...

Then I don't know what to tell you. I even did all the work for you. If TIM can control what indoctrination does then he can use that control to protect and/or counter against it too.

I'm not talking about having everyone who is indocrinated be controlled by one group (Ceberus OR the Reapers), I'm talking about if Cerberus found a way to indoctrinate people THEMSELVES, regardless of who the Reapers indoctrinated.  They would have no bearing on each other.

You seem to think that just because they can indoctrinate people, that means they can figure out a way to prevent people from being indoctrinated which is not true at all.  We can greatly cure schizophrenia, but that doesn't mean we can prevent it from happening. 

[nevar00]

Markinator_123 wrote...

I still think destroying the base is retarded. It does surprise me that some paragon players look for appeasement in their decision making not knowing how dangerous that is. I also find the idea of universal unity between the races to be quite laughable. Sure we might all oppose the Reapers and we may fight the fight but we should not looking to be friends with the other races. People seem to forget that foreign policy is based upon SELF-INTEREST. Turians are only looking out for the interests of Turians. Asari are only looking out for the interests of the Asari. You as Shepard, should be looking after the interests of humanity first. You cooperate only when it is going to benefit your nation (humanity). By not doing that, you are a traitor to the human race because you would be placing the interests of the Asari, Turian, etc above your own.

Yes, but a human-only senate governing everyone, now that is the answer to all our problems!  What could possibly go wrong...

[nevar00]

Alright I see where this is getting confusing. Let's not call it indoctrination; let's just call it a signal that Ceberus finds on the base that allows them to control the minds of people in the same way indoctrination works for the Reapers.

[88mphSlayer]

i hadn't really thought about it so this may be a dumb question about indoctrination:

is collector technology even remotely the same as reaper technology? i mean do you think there's a difference between "reaper baby making technology" and actually having the technology itself pre-built? i say this because i don't think when Sovereign blew up in Mass Effect 1 that those little bits and pieces indoctrinated anybody, not that i'm aware of... wouldn't Cerberus have to make a leap of production to even build something from what they find that would produce anything that could indoctrinate? even then, they had a 37 million year old derelict reaper already, if there's something to learn about indoctrination they would've already done it

to me this feels like a bunch of monkeys capturing a gun factory, is there really a threat? or is it just a waste of time? not to mention even if Cerberus wanted to somehow use the collector base, is there even enough time? the reapers are on their way and will arrive very soon... weeks? months? a year? seems to me if Cerberus gets their hands on the collector base, there's no way they'd be able to weaponize the base's full potential before the reapers arrived anyways, and if you win the war what kind of clout would Cerberus really have if they did threaten galactic stability? next to none i'd think, i think whether the base is really a threat or not depends less on keeping it vs. just how evil you're going to be in the 3rd game when choosing how to defeat the reapers

that's just my observation - even with reaper control & genetically modified collectors & a collector ship with advanced weaponry the collector base was still taken down by 1 squad in 1 ship and there was no way the baby reaper would be finished anytime soon... it just seems to me that everything about the base points to "you might learn some things but you wouldn't be able to actually use any of it for decades"

i think the irony is that Cerberus would've likely learned a lot more about reaper indoctrination and manipulation if TIM hadn't ordered Shepard to kill off all organic life on the station, maybe he should've said "hey Shepard, thanks for taking the base, btw reinforcements are on their way, they'll kill the remaining collectors with additional objective of capturing some alive, this is like finding living dinosaurs so it'd be really dumb to just turn 'em all into inanimate matter (ha ha), you take care of that baby reaper and make sure the collector general is irrelevant, over and out"

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 02 mars 2011 - 11:23 .