803 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

I don't see the point of hand wringing on what Cerberus could do with the base as stacking up to the confirmed threat of what the Reapers face. By keeping that base you're better positioned against the threat of the Reapers than what you would be otherwise.

It's nonsense imo to continue to pull out reasons from your nether-regions to justify your decision to blow up the base, when you're actually in no better position to protect anyone or anything against the Reapers when they show up. Any excuse that you do pull out in order to argue that defenses are being organized pale into insignificance that any Shephard has access to those resources plus the ones now represented by the intact Collector Base, therefore a larger sample size.

Describing everything about the events of ME2 as some sort of Xanatos Gambit on the part of the Reapers is seriously stretching credibility imo, because organics have been proven to be unpredictable...

[lovgreno]

You can make good reasons for both blowing up the base and keeping it if you realy want to. It may take some effort and imagination though. And thinking outside your box is scary if you have low enough self esteem to not daring to even consider the possibility of being wrong.

[Daddy555]

i never saw any reason what so ever to destroy the base , if we had not used the base then all those lives lost would be for nothing our only hope of victory is to use there own resourses ageinst them , dont bring right or wrong into it this is WAR and sometimes the hard choices have to be made its lucky the galaxy has my sheperd to handle this not some paragon nerd that will get us all killed in the name of ...the right thing to do lol

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

I wasn't aware Mordin fought in a hot war with the Krogan, Moiaussi.[/quote]

And he maintained the existing provisions keeping another hot war from happening. He didn't create the solution in the first place, he is just helping enforce it. The Krogan population is finally stable and they are starting to hold their own on their own merits as a society rather than purely on reproduction rate.
[/quote]This site lacks a good eye roll smile.
[quote]

I repeats, appearantly you feel they should have found death to be less abhorrant? Shooting back isn't the same as instigating.[/quote]There was no need to 'shoot back' after a point: genocide was not a necessity for ending the bloodshed.

[quote]
Come off it. By your arguement, Saren was completely right, since the Protheans did 'survive.' They did 'compromise and accept surrender.' In fact, the Protheans were about as compromised and surrendered as one can get. [/quote]Survive in what sense: is there anything cultural or idenity about the Collectors that can be called Prothean?

There is cultural change, and there is identity death, but using Reaper technology does not make us Reapers.

[quote]
We could probably 'survive' by introducing a genophage equivalent that devolves us all back into primordial ooze so that we would be absolutely no use to the Reapers. We would 'survive' by your definition. I mean, change happens, right? You are stretching the definition of survival beyond all rationality, or perhaps to pure rationality, a purely technical definition. [/quote]Funnily enough, I was thinking the same about you, and then some.

[quote]
The colonists weren't free until the Thorian died, and even now aren't completely free.[/quote]The Thorian certainly isn't controlling them now, and whether they could have been freed by other means wasn't even investigated.
[quote]
The Collectors could have built other cruisers and my still have other cruisers[/quote]We can easily destroy their cruisers, and intercept their other cruisers, at the point we destroyed their first. We achieved spacial superiority.

[quote]
The only 'safe' solution would have been to take the Quarian option and pack up everyone we can and run away. Is that your actual suggestion here?[/quote]Did I say that?

And no, that isn't the only 'safe' solution. Quarantine and enforcing a DMZ was always a possibility.
[quote]
The game also told us that the Council (or at least the Alliance) were onside with the existance of the Reapers.
[/quote]And then, in the later progression of events, the canon told us that the Council did not believe us, and more or less buried their hands. This was a change of opinion on their parts, and the later clearly and openly supplanted the later.

What source suggests the Collectors still exist?
[quote]
The game and novels also didn't mention the Collectors at all until ME2, despite their being a major long lived race who appearantly operate out of the same region as the Geth and therefore would have been an obvious power to try to talk to, or at least to bring up in conversation on strategy.[/quote]Except the game and novels of ME2 and Retribution also go on about exactly why the Collectors weren't clear and obvious perpetrators. (Reclusive being the biggest.)
[quote]
The Council and Alliance act like the main body of the Geth don't exist, too. Does that mean Legion is lieing and they don't exist?[/quote]Since the Council and Alliance never deny that the main body of the Geth exist, your point is rather... pointless.


[quote]
ROFL, either you treat the game as evidence or you are making up your own facts. [/quote]Please: which facts am I making up? Do be specific.

[quote]
If they weren't 'combat dedicated', why would you expect them to have huge caches of ultra powerful tech?[/quote]Why would high technology have to be combat-dedicated? 

The answer is: it isn't. The two are in no way mutually required, and the Collector MO was research and development. I just spent seven of the last nine hours in an engineering research center. It has enough electronics and computers to change history if it were sent back to, say, the seventies. But there wasn't a gun in there.

High technology can be adapted to military use without being military itself.


Moreover, combat dedicated does not mean combat incapable: it simply means it isn't a military-focused venue. Which, when considering the nature of the Collector Base, and the Collectors themselves, is rather blatant. They are situated like a science development force with a nice security system. They aren't organized or based like soldiers.
[quote]
It is like raiding a walmart or a toy factory and expecting to capture large caches of military grade weapons.[/quote]You're unfamiliar with the tales of Iraq under Saddam ordering civilian electronic goods (including game boys) from the US, aren't you? Nor are you familiar with the Toyota War. Even today, on this planet, civilian sector technology from first-world countries can provide significant military advantages to third-world countries.

If we had a Walmart from today go back thirty years, that would be a scientific coup of the century, just from the electronics department alone. A mere thirty years.

[quote]
So, you are saying that because people are worried about Cerberus getting dangerous tech, then such dangerous tech de facto exists, and on the other hand that there is nothing there dangerous enough to make Cerberus a threat to anything but the Reapers? [/quote]I'm saying that if we see the Collectors having dangerous, advanced tech that surpases our own, and we're aware that the Reapers have dangerous, advanced tech in advance of our own, and we know that the Collector Base is their in-galaxy source for developing, creating, and maintaining advanced, deadly tech of their own, and if we've spent large parts of the game capturing and utilizing Collector tech to our own advantage, and if the Illusive Man tells us that there's potent and useful Collector technology in the Collector base, and if everyone in the game treats what's in the base as potent and usable technology, and if not one person in the game has disputed that the technology can be used, and if in fact the concerns of the teammates upon keeping the base are that TIM can and will use it...

Then I have strong standing to say that there both is technology in the base, and that it can be used.

[quote]
Arguing both sides now simultaneously?[/quote]You had the wit and wisdom to jump in the middle of an argument in which the prior person was arguing from the other direction.

No reason both arguments against the base (that there's nothing to be had in the base : that what's in the base is impossible to study/too dangerous to study) can't be wrong.
[quote]

Well duh, but just because you are making risk assessments doesn't make your assessments correct. Assessing a high chance that the next lottery ticket I buy will be the grand prize winning ticket doesn't make it so. Quit talking as if you are psychic and simply 'know' the correct weightings. [/quote]Give a good basis for re-weighting, and I'll listen. Give poor ones, and I'll dispute.

If someone else is going to argue that there is no usable or useful technology in the Collector base, I'm going to point at the game's multiple assertions otherwise.

If someone else tries to imply that keeping the Collector base means that no galactic cooperation is possible, I'm going to point out how much that requires the galaxy as a whole to be completely moronic and unthinking.

If someone else intends to posit that the base is likely trapped, I'll point out the lack of support and the fact that potential traps are not uncircumventable, nor do they innately outweigh the strategic benefits.

If someone else suggests that indoctrination would make the base an irrevocable galactic disaster, I'll point out that the scenario is so baseless and stupid and easy to avoid and mitigate as to not withstand disbelief.

If someone else makes a claim that the only way to produce or use Reaper technology is to make smoothies, I'll point out the instances in which that is demonstratably untrue.

If someone else says that there's no time to study and reverse engineer the base, I'll point out that there is no known limit, and that the Mass Effect universe freely and firmly supports rapid reverse technology.

If someone argues that using Reaper technology is following the Reapers intentions, I'll point out all the ways in which this series of events has NOT been by the Reapers intentions.


And I say 'everyone else' because, well...

[quote]
If your plan is for humanity to become Reapers to fight the Reapers, all that means is that your plan is to become another enemy for the rest of us to fight.[/quote]Yes Moiaussi.

I'm currently advocating the use of advanced technology in order to commit regular cycles of galactic genocide. I hate all organic life, and seek for everyone to have a hive mind.

That's exactly what I'm arguing for. You caught me. I really am a Reaper. You completely defined my argument with your typical expert perception.

And since I am a reaper, and you've finally caught me with you stunning brilliance, I shall nevermore argue with your estatic sort of logic. After all, clearly you are immune to my sinister indoctrination arguments.

[Arijharn]

lovgreno wrote...

You can make good reasons for both blowing up the base and keeping it if you realy want to. It may take some effort and imagination though. And thinking outside your box is scary if you have low enough self esteem to not daring to even consider the possibility of being wrong.

Do you want to know why I think blowing up the base is the mother-of-all stupid decision? It isn't really anything to do with how I secretly want to put 'humanity on top' or for anything else it's because of one real reason:
The Reapers only seem to understand the concept of total war.
I can not think (or even hope) that halfway during their attempts to annihiliate us all that they'll come and offer us a bargain (and certainly not one that would benefit us) at the 11th hour or somesuch.
They will be brutal, they will be meticulous and they will be rather final about it.

To destroy the base is folly simply because you eliminate one more hope to destroy the Reapers. The Collector Base represents an actionable path to that goal because at the very least it holds intel on Reaper construction methods (and how do we know this? Because they were building one!) and that's excluding all the Collector technology itself which we know is above galactic standard (to which the Reapers can reasonably be expected to plan for to defeat) and thus of more use to us when it comes to reverse-engineering and understanding? Hell, Indoctrination needs to be understood as well, so even if aspects of the Reaper can still potentially indoctrinate, then it's more advantageous to be performed in a scientific environment with safeguards about (aka; no Anderson sending Cerberus data to Turian teams so they can kick down the door).

What real hope do those who destroy it have? They aren't any closer to defeating the Reapers close ME2, whereas those who save it have the potential (if nothing else) to use that technology to your advantage, and considering neither side currently has assurances, I will take the option that supplies more promise by far.

Even maintaining Cerberus as an ally (for the moment at least) is more beneficial than just cutting them loose out of hand.

Truth is that in the Mass Effect game, more than any other RPG, I've actually role-played it -- I try to make decisions in it as if the world my shep's inhabit is reality (and it's for that reason that I steer clear of ze expanded universe materials etc) and whether I would perform those actions if I was capable and in that situation.

Strategically speaking; the decision to arbritrarily blow up that base without at least exploring it in depth is just... moronic, and while I'm trying very hard not to be purposely inflammatory about my remarks (and apologies if I unintentionally cause offense) I will say that if you were my Co and gave that order, then for better or worse I will be insurbordinate and relieve you of command, because I feel that it is a serious mistake of massively disproportionate consequences to make that decision.

[Labrev]

I did both to see what happens in 3. But I destroyed it without a second thought. Yeah, the tech could be valuable and all, but also very dangerous in the wrong hands. Only a fool would trust TIM.

[Undertone]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If someone else is going to argue that there is no usable or useful technology in the Collector base, I'm going to point at the game's multiple assertions otherwise.

If someone else tries to imply that keeping the Collector base means that no galactic cooperation is possible, I'm going to point out how much that requires the galaxy as a whole to be completely moronic and unthinking.

If someone else intends to posit that the base is likely trapped, I'll point out the lack of support and the fact that potential traps are not uncircumventable, nor do they innately outweigh the strategic benefits.

If someone else suggests that indoctrination would make the base an irrevocable galactic disaster, I'll point out that the scenario is so baseless and stupid and easy to avoid and mitigate as to not withstand disbelief.

If someone else makes a claim that the only way to produce or use Reaper technology is to make smoothies, I'll point out the instances in which that is demonstratably untrue.

If someone else says that there's no time to study and reverse engineer the base, I'll point out that there is no known limit, and that the Mass Effect universe freely and firmly supports rapid reverse technology.

If someone argues that using Reaper technology is following the Reapers intentions, I'll point out all the ways in which this series of events has NOT been by the Reapers intentions.

Thank you. I am saving that for whenever the next Keep/Destroy Collector Base thread comes around. The problem is most paragons are completely blind of the bigger picture with usual replies how TIM and Cerberus are evil. If I got 5 cents for every reply like that I would be rich.

[Vaenier]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If someone else is going to argue that there is no usable or useful technology in the Collector base, I'm going to point at the game's multiple assertions otherwise.

If someone else tries to imply that keeping the Collector base means that no galactic cooperation is possible, I'm going to point out how much that requires the galaxy as a whole to be completely moronic and unthinking.

If someone else intends to posit that the base is likely trapped, I'll point out the lack of support and the fact that potential traps are not uncircumventable, nor do they innately outweigh the strategic benefits.

If someone else suggests that indoctrination would make the base an irrevocable galactic disaster, I'll point out that the scenario is so baseless and stupid and easy to avoid and mitigate as to not withstand disbelief.

If someone else makes a claim that the only way to produce or use Reaper technology is to make smoothies, I'll point out the instances in which that is demonstratably untrue.

If someone else says that there's no time to study and reverse engineer the base, I'll point out that there is no known limit, and that the Mass Effect universe freely and firmly supports rapid reverse technology.

If someone argues that using Reaper technology is following the Reapers intentions, I'll point out all the ways in which this series of events has NOT been by the Reapers intentions.

gg. Thread is over. We can all just accept this already and stop making this topic. [/Thread]

[Dean_the_Young]

Hey, 9-11 conspiracies have lived longer with far less basis and far more disproof existing.

[LordShrike]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
"If someone else is going to argue that there is no usable or useful technology in the Collector base, I'm going to point at the game's multiple assertions otherwise.

If someone else tries to imply that keeping the Collector base means that no galactic cooperation is possible, I'm going to point out how much that requires the galaxy as a whole to be completely moronic and unthinking.

If someone else intends to posit that the base is likely trapped, I'll point out the lack of support and the fact that potential traps are not uncircumventable, nor do they innately outweigh the strategic benefits.

If someone else suggests that indoctrination would make the base an irrevocable galactic disaster, I'll point out that the scenario is so baseless and stupid and easy to avoid and mitigate as to not withstand disbelief.

If someone else makes a claim that the only way to produce or use Reaper technology is to make smoothies, I'll point out the instances in which that is demonstratably untrue.

If someone else says that there's no time to study and reverse engineer the base, I'll point out that there is no known limit, and that the Mass Effect universe freely and firmly supports rapid reverse technology.

If someone argues that using Reaper technology is following the Reapers intentions, I'll point out all the ways in which this series of events has NOT been by the Reapers intentions."

You really tought it was over? Silly you... (For discussions sake:)
1st Assertions are not facts. Reapers have penchant for booby trapping stuph, makes sense CB would be too. Those booby traps strain the usefullnes of anything in there.
2nd Moronic and unthinking goes hand to hand with most politicians. Coughairquotescough! And as a whole galactic community is nothing if not misinformed.
3rd Okay. (Since Saren-esque freethinking indoctrinees require a Reaper.)
4th Hmm. Maybe to unlock it's fullest potential would require Smoothification. (reaching it...) Or implantation of Reaper tech, not smart.
5th Limit must be in years rather than decades(yes there is one. not known but it is there.) If you were pointing to the Thanix, that probably was reverse-engineered with the help of existing prototype.
6th True... (Minor nitpicking.)

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If someone else is going to argue that there is no usable or useful technology in the Collector base, I'm going to point at the game's multiple assertions otherwise.

If someone else tries to imply that keeping the Collector base means that no galactic cooperation is possible, I'm going to point out how much that requires the galaxy as a whole to be completely moronic and unthinking.

If someone else intends to posit that the base is likely trapped, I'll point out the lack of support and the fact that potential traps are not uncircumventable, nor do they innately outweigh the strategic benefits.

If someone else suggests that indoctrination would make the base an irrevocable galactic disaster, I'll point out that the scenario is so baseless and stupid and easy to avoid and mitigate as to not withstand disbelief.

If someone else makes a claim that the only way to produce or use Reaper technology is to make smoothies, I'll point out the instances in which that is demonstratably untrue.

If someone else says that there's no time to study and reverse engineer the base, I'll point out that there is no known limit, and that the Mass Effect universe freely and firmly supports rapid reverse technology.

If someone argues that using Reaper technology is following the Reapers intentions, I'll point out all the ways in which this series of events has NOT been by the Reapers intentions.

That's fine but the best you can offer isn't solid proof.  The fact is that those other possibilities exist and are supported themselves by evidence, you just prefer to focus on the evidence that appeals to your view and ignore the evidence of the other side (or consider it weaker despite the fact that it's just as valid as your evidence).  It's personal opinion that is driving which pieces of evidence you choose as the most important and that doesn't do anything to disprove the other side.  Someone who feels the other side's evidence is stronger and appeals to them more is equally as justified as you in their decision.

Previous Cerberus research efforts have been disastrous, the only one that we're aware of that really succeeded and provided valuable results was the Lazarus Project and even it had to be rescued by the very person it was dedicated to bringing back.  You rely on the "either they're geniuses or they're idiots" argument but that's too simplistic and ignores a lot of facts.

Cerberus has an excellent record in espionage and engineering.  They're great at building bases (although they do occasionally have flaws, I blame the research/design teams for that) and they built the Normandy SR-2 quite well.  They also stole the plans for the Normandy SR-2, they manage to have good information on the Collector movements before anyone else and they can keep information away from others for at least some time.

Even with all this good work, they have a terrible research record.  They don't just use unethical practices, they also use incredibly dangerous techniques that far too often result in catastophic failure.  They tried researching Husks, Thorian Creepers and Rachni and all three ended in the destruction of their research posts (and most/all staff) with no significant beneficial results.  They tried researching ways to control the Geth and it ended with almost all staff dead and no significant beneficial results (perhaps a confirmation that the Geth can be manipulated somehow).  They tried researching ways to improve biotic power in Humans and it ended with the destruction of their base and no significant beneficial results.  Several catastrophic failures that could have been even worse if not for the intervention of Shepard.  Maybe Shepard could keep an eye on the collector base research or drop by to tidy things up if it all goes wrong but that'll still result in no benefits, a loss of Shepards time to clean up the mess, a loss of the resources invested in the research that could have been invested elsewhere and who knows what damage before Shepard gets involved.

Every attempt to study Reaper technology has come with incredible risks (apart from some techs such as the Mass Relays) and so many times people thought they could keep those risks to a minimum or that they were acceptable only to have them result in catastrophy.  Assuming that we can mitigate the unknown dangers of the collector base or deal with them when we come to them is totally irresponsible and flies in the face of what has gone before.  It's possible it might work this time but it's at least as likely to all go horribly wrong.

One good way to mitigate the risks, of course, is to blow the whole thing up and guarantee that it wont be a danger.  The only reason that is considered an unacceptable option by some is that they value the possible benefits over the possible risks.  The fact is that there's a lot more evidence that taking those risks wont work out so it's definately a major risk to keep the base.  If it does work out there's a good chance we'll get some fairly useful technology from the base but if things go wrong we'll end up with nothing at best.  Both options have some merit but to say that keeping the base is the only sensible option is demonstrably untrue.

We don't know what the future will hold and there's plenty of evidence that things could go wrong, just ignoring it is irresponsible.  It's fine to say "I think keeping the base is worth the risk" or "I think keeping the base isn't worth the risk" but to suggest that the other possibility is totally unsupported is inaccurate at best.

[kumquats]

As long as Shepard can't shoot moral decisions at Reapers, I will keep the collector base.

[Dean_the_Young]

LordShrike wrote...
You really tought it was over? Silly you... (For discussions sake:)

Not particularly.


I generally have less issue with people who destroy the base (disagreement about conclusions) but accept the game's position. Ok, you don't like TIM and you'd rather risk the galaxy than see TIM gain. I disagree, but at least you (whoever 'you' is in this case) isn't going to pretend that the base was worthless.

It's the people who insist on arguing against the game's own statement of facts, against the very basis of the choice itself, that annoy me. The 'game's opposing choice must be undermined to make it baseless as well as quote immoral unquote' crowd, who insist that, hey, the very final decision of the game was a no-brainer, because that other choice? Not real!'

Sort of like the people who insist that the 'focus on Sovereign' decision of ME1 was stupid because, hey, it's really the other option that would preserve your forces against Sovereign. Even though the game explicitly tells you otherwise. (Yes, there are people who make that argument.)

1st Assertions are not facts. Reapers have penchant for booby trapping stuph, makes sense CB would be too.

When have the Reapers given us an uncircumventable booby trap?

And, yes, there is proof that there is technology in the Collector Base. That proof being... the technology we have to fight our way through in order to beat the Collectors.

Those booby traps strain the usefullnes of anything in there.

Not really. Or rather, not at a plausible scale of cost.

If, say, the hypothetical booby trap was a galaxy-destroying monstrosity, then it wouldn't be worth it... but if the Collectors had that capability on hand, they could set it off to go regardless, because it wouldn't even need to be in the base itself. You can just as easily construe a scenario in which the post-Collector booby trap is based upon not destroying the base: a simple system in which the Collectors have a dead-man trigger that, if the base is ever lost (the sign that they have, in fact, been defeated), then... whatever is released. Super-plague that Mordin can't cure. Indoctrination bombs on the Citadel. Whatever.

The booby trap argument is based on three dependent presumptions: that the booby trap exists, that the booby trap is based on being in the Base, and that if the base is destroyed the booby trap is nullified. None of these is inherent, or supports the premise of the other.

2nd Moronic and unthinking goes hand to hand with most politicians. Coughairquotescough! And as a whole galactic community is nothing if not misinformed.

So you agree with my point that we have to consider everyone else to be utterly illogical actors? Good to know: we can't trust illogical actors to be logical in other respects as well.

4th Hmm. Maybe to unlock it's fullest potential would require Smoothification. (reaching it...) Or implantation of Reaper tech, not smart.

Why would we need that sort of 'fullest'?  Moreover, why would it be 'fullest' at all?

If we make Thannixs out of people, we'll run out of people, and we have all the trouble of getting thannixs. If we make Thannixs out of minerals and metals, like we actually do, we can have a whole lot easier time making a lot more Thannixs with a lot less trouble. Even if a Reaper-smoothie cannon is five percent stronger, that doesn't make it the strategic winner.

5th Limit must be in years rather than decades(yes there is one. not known but it is there.) If you were pointing to the Thanix, that probably was reverse-engineered with the help of existing prototype.

Thannix, EDI, Mordin's Seeker technology, the speed of duplication of the Reaper IFF: these are all examples of how we have been able to study, turn around, and utilize Reaper technology in a medium-term (six monthes to two years) to short-term time frame (days to weeks), without requiring the smoothification of others.

Even the Protheans didn't use smoothies to make the Conduit, a Mass Relay, arguably the pinnacle of Reaper technology.

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I generally have less issue with people who destroy the base (disagreement about conclusions) but accept the game's position. Ok, you don't like TIM and you'd rather risk the galaxy than see TIM gain. I disagree, but at least you (whoever 'you' is in this case) isn't going to pretend that the base was worthless.

It's the people who insist on arguing against the game's own statement of facts, against the very basis of the choice itself, that annoy me. The 'game's opposing choice must be undermined to make it baseless as well as quote immoral unquote' crowd, who insist that, hey, the very final decision of the game was a no-brainer, because that other choice? Not real!'

When you talk about what the game states, are you talking about some kind of implied outcome that Shepard wouldn't have access to or in-universe information that the game gives? I find that there's a lot of in-universe information that would suggest blowing up the base makes sense.  Of course it's equally true that the in-universe information suggests that keeping the base could provide benefits down the line.  Neither choice is absolutely proveable as correct with in-universe information but both have a decent case.

Meta-gaming wise, it's still implied that a Paragon can often win by doing the morally right thing (based on whatever the game considers morally right at least) so destroying the base still makes as much sense as keeping it (since the game also shows that Renegades can win by doing "what it takes").  I haven't encountered many decisions where I've really felt cheated or that the game was suggesting I was doing wrong by being a Renegade (although some decisions make the Renegade option just "evil" rather than "efficient").  Still, it would be nice if keeping the base led to follow up opportunities, just handing it over to Cerberus shouldn't be the only option.  I suppose there could also be options after destroying the base, such as who to inform about the potential salvage (could be from "everyone", "the alliance" or "leave it for Cerberus").  I suppose those things could be left until ME3 but it's hard to trust that the game will deal with too many follow up issues apart from "things have gone wrong" either way (or just give you a message saying "good job" either way).

I personally go with what my character would choose, some Paragons keep it because they still think it's worth the risk, that the lives that are already gone could be wasted otherwise and/or that Cerberus may have been evil in the past but could still prove useful and deserve a chance (or whatever other reason) while some Renegades destroy the base because they don't trust Cerberus, the risks are too significant and so on.  Still, I can see why most Paragons would destroy the base (they think we can beat the Reapers by being better than them) while Renegades would keep it (they also think we can beat the Reapers by being better than them, different definition of "better").

Modifié par Smeelia, 04 mars 2011 - 03:20 .

[bztang]

In my latest paragon-ish playthrough I kept the base, so that in ME3, I'll have support from the Rachni (saved in ME1), the Geth (rewrote heretics), the Krogan (saved Wrex in ME1, held on to cure data during Mordin loyalty), the Migrant Fleet (promote peace with Geth) and the Collector base tech That's a heck of a lot of firepower IMO. Although, even without the Collector base tech, it would have been impressive, but I already had a playthrough with all the paragon choices, so I decided to make one with choices I wanted to make (still ended up with full paragon bar, even though I used a bunch of renegade interrupts ).

I guess we will see what happens in ME3...hopefully they don't just make it save the base = you've been naughty, so all you get is an upgraded assault rifle or Cerberus also just used the base to kill off the Turians...doh! Bah!
From the trends in ME1 and ME2, it looks like being an ass will make the masses be asses and being nice will have them being nicer in general.
The ME2 results from paragon choices in ME1 clearly seem to be positive (saved council = all citadel species + human relationship is better than ever + get your Spectre status back, etc), while renegade choice results are just dumb (especially picking Udina as councillor, omfg what an ass, or people trying to extinguish the Shepard memorial, etc), but you do promote Human dominance ><. Which reminds me of the mirror universe in Star Trek

/rant

Modifié par bztang, 04 mars 2011 - 03:41 .

[LordShrike]

Dean_The_Young Wrote some stuffs:
"The booby trap argument is based on three dependent presumptions: that the booby trap exists, that the booby trap is based on being in the Base, and that if the base is destroyed the booby trap is nullified. None of these is inherent, or supports the premise of the other.

Why would we need that sort of 'fullest'? Moreover, why would it be 'fullest' at all?.......

...Mass Relay, arguably the pinnacle of Reaper technology."
HackNSlash... For Great Justice.
Simple monitoring device should be sufficient to greatly hamper all efforts to study stuff at CB. (Where else it's going to get studied? Locations ideal.) It does not need to be destructive to be effective.

I said i was reaching for it... Calibration of simple IFF was catastrophic. And it was needed to use the damn thing in the first place. Who knows how dangerous some Reaper gun might be to calibrate. (I'm not behind these arguments, i just make them.)

Mass Relays were something akin to a honey to a bee, a lure to expand and colonize. Maybe the most advanced thing we have seen but i doubt it's the most advanced thing Reapers have dreamed up. It would make sense even for Reapers to keep up in tech race.(If you are going to say something like: "That's human thinking" i'm going to do a *Renegade Interrupt*.)

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

That's fine but the best you can offer isn't solid proof.

No one can offer solid proof of the future. It's an impossible, and meaningless, standard.

The fact is that those other possibilities exist and are supported themselves by evidence, you just prefer to focus on the evidence that appeals to your view and ignore the evidence of the other side (or consider it weaker despite the fact that it's just as valid as your evidence).  It's personal opinion that is driving which pieces of evidence you choose as the most important and that doesn't do anything to disprove the other side.  Someone who feels the other side's evidence is stronger and appeals to them more is equally as justified as you in their decision.

What evidence proves the Collector Base is booby trapped? What evidence proves that such booby traps are not uncircumventable? What evidence proves that the technology inside can't be used?

You argue the necessity of solid proof, but provide remarkably little yourself.

Previous Cerberus research efforts have been disastrous, the only one that we're aware of that really succeeded and provided valuable results was the Lazarus Project and even it had to be rescued by the very person it was dedicated to bringing back.  You rely on the "either they're geniuses or they're idiots" argument but that's too simplistic and ignores a lot of facts.

Nonsense: the Derilect Reaper team did find and extract an IFF, Overlord did find a way to control Geth, and even the horific Teltin did produce the strongest human biotic. That these projects had death tolls (and unredeemable human suffering in Teltin) doesn't mean they provided nothing of signficiantly greater value for the Reaper War. Of the three most notable Cerberus disasters in ME2, none had ultimately catastrophic consequences, two of the three produced outputs that were instrumental in ending the Collector threat,  and one of them remains salvagable at the whim of Shepard.

Even the 'worse case scenario' people raise as a Spectre was decidedly unimpressive in Retribution: a galactic threat so fierce, so dangerous, it got taken out by one guy with a shotgun, and did the grand total damage of raiding a civilian biotic research institutuion. You already had your disasters, and it wasn't much.

Even with all this good work, they have a terrible research record.  They don't just use unethical practices, they also use incredibly dangerous techniques that far too often result in catastophic failure.  They tried researching Husks, Thorian Creepers and Rachni and all three ended in the destruction of their research posts (and most/all staff) with no significant beneficial results.  They tried researching ways to control the Geth and it ended with almost all staff dead and no significant beneficial results (perhaps a confirmation that the Geth can be manipulated somehow).  They tried researching ways to improve biotic power in Humans and it ended with the destruction of their base and no significant beneficial results.  Several catastrophic failures that could have been even worse if not for the intervention of Shepard.  Maybe Shepard could keep an eye on the collector base research or drop by to tidy things up if it all goes wrong but that'll still result in no benefits, a loss of Shepards time to clean up the mess, a loss of the resources invested in the research that could have been invested elsewhere and who knows what damage before Shepard gets involved.

Besides the fact that the Thorian research was by exo-geni and only failed because of Shepard's killing of the Thorian, and the (ironic,. coming from you) lack of solid proof that Cerberus was responsible for colony of the dead, let's look at just how catastrophic these failures really were.

Teltin was not a galaxy-ruinous affair, and actually produced an unarguable asset to galactic survival. The Rachni experiments did not succede, but did not threaten the galaxy. Cerberus's involvement with the husks, in whatever manner it was, did not harm any significant area of the galaxy. Overlord is only unproductive if Shepard ends it: that avenue of research is now known to be plausible, and not a potential dead-end like the Rachni, husks, and thorian research.

These catastrophic failures had costs largely born by Cerberus and marginal areas of the galaxy. The only one that ever came close to an actual impediment of galactic preparation was Overlord, and that was fixed by Cerberus, well, sending in a team. (You.)

Even the case study of 'Collector technology running amuck of Cerberus', Retribution, wasn't even a yawn on the galactic scale.

Every attempt to study Reaper technology has come with incredible risks (apart from some techs such as the Mass Relays) and so many times people thought they could keep those risks to a minimum or that they were acceptable only to have them result in catastrophy.  .

And yet the payoff has been tremendous: the mass relays gave us the Conduit, and the mass effect gave Shepard every weapon and armor he uses. Studying a Reaper itself gave us the Thannix, EDI, and the IFF, the later two of which was entirely a product of Cerberus research and was a requisite for  beating the Collectors.

Meanwhile the costs born by researching Reaper technology have not been debilitative to beating the Reapers (not least since we will eventually pay the costs anyway regardless), while our means to counter them have increased with every exposure.

Assuming that we can mitigate the unknown dangers of the collector base
or deal with them when we come to them is totally irresponsible and
flies in the face of what has gone before.  It's possible it might work
this time but it's at least as likely to all go horribly wrong

It goes exactly with what we have found before. We find problems. Sometimes these produce costs, sometimes they do not. Costs found are not insurmountable or debilitative towards galactic preparation. The results are by far disproportionate in favor.

Where would Shepard, and the effort against the Collectors, be if we destroyed all Reaper technology and refused to study it?

One good way to mitigate the risks, of course, is to blow the whole thing up and guarantee that it wont be a danger.  The only reason that is considered an unacceptable option by some is that they value the possible benefits over the possible risks.  The fact is that there's a lot more evidence that taking those risks wont work out so it's definately a major risk to keep the base.  If it does work out there's a good chance we'll get some fairly useful technology from the base but if things go wrong we'll end up with nothing at best.  Both options have some merit but to say that keeping the base is the only sensible option is demonstrably untrue.

The evidence of the risks is the exact opposite. When we have had costs from researching Reaper, those costs have not been debilitative to our overall effort. When we have had successes, those successes have far outstripped all the costs combined. The cost-benefit ration from the Derilect Reaper alone is astounding.

We don't know what the future will hold and there's plenty of evidence that things could go wrong, just ignoring it is irresponsible.  It's fine to say "I think keeping the base is worth the risk" or "I think keeping the base isn't worth the risk" but to suggest that the other possibility is totally unsupported is inaccurate at best.

Wholy unsupported is not what I'm arguing. Largely unsupported, and largely weak, is.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 04 mars 2011 - 03:54 .

[Dean_the_Young]

LordShrike wrote...
Simple monitoring device should be sufficient to greatly hamper all efforts to study stuff at CB.

Monitoring doesn't stop progress. The Reapers know our technology already, and the entire Collector system is based around that they know where our technology is developing towards anyway.

(Where else it's going to get studied? Locations ideal.)

Anywhere and everywhere else. The location is not ideal: it has a very visible, single choke point in territory that Cerberus can't control: the Omega 4 relay itself. While it would make sense to have some research on-base, shipping smaller, transportable technology away for study elsewhere not only takes advantage of existing Cerberus hidden facilities, but also disperses the risk of, say, Aria (or anyone else) launching a blockade of the Omega 4 relay to hinder Cerberus.

I said i was reaching for it... Calibration of simple IFF was catastrophic. And it was needed to use the damn thing in the first place. Who knows how dangerous some Reaper gun might be to calibrate. (I'm not behind these arguments, i just make them.)

Calibration of a the IFF (which can hardly be called simple) was not catastrophic. In fact, had EDI not been shackled in the first place, the IFF trap would have been completely trounced, just as it was once she was unshackled.

The IFF is actually the wort analogy to use for an advocate of destroying the base: it was actually a trap, but the trap and costs were manegable and the benefits so far outweighed the costs as to be ridiculous.

Mass Relays were something akin to a honey to a bee, a lure to expand and colonize. Maybe the most advanced thing we have seen but i doubt it's the most advanced thing Reapers have dreamed up. It would make sense even for Reapers to keep up in tech race.(If you are going to say something like: "That's human thinking" i'm going to do a *Renegade Interrupt*.)

Since all derivative mechanical technology demonstrated or implied by the reapers to this point falls far short of being able to transport large amounts of mass instantly across the galaxy...

[LordShrike]

Dean_the_Young again wrote something i must comment:
"Anywhere and everywhere else. The location is not ideal: it has a very visible, single choke point in territory that Cerberus can't control: the Omega 4 relay itself. While it would make sense to have some research on-base, shipping smaller, transportable technology away for study elsewhere not only takes advantage of existing Cerberus hidden facilities, but also disperses the risk of, say, Aria (or anyone else) launching a blockade of the Omega 4 relay to hinder Cerberus.

Since all derivative mechanical technology demonstrated or implied by the reapers to this point falls far short of being able to transport large amounts of mass instantly across the galaxy..."

Valid theory. But is choke point choke point if it's passable only by single faction? No, it's a gate.
Blockade at O-4 would require foreknowledge(of CB) and large investment in Terminus systems. Even Aria or the Council would think twice before doing it. Besides, CB surroundings is Cerb. Territory.

Hmmm... Personally i would go with the Reapers themselves. (Internal Relay!!1!!)

Running out of point's to argue. GJ.

[Dean_the_Young]

LordShrike wrote...

Dean_the_Young again wrote something i must comment:
"Anywhere and everywhere else. The location is not ideal: it has a very visible, single choke point in territory that Cerberus can't control: the Omega 4 relay itself. While it would make sense to have some research on-base, shipping smaller, transportable technology away for study elsewhere not only takes advantage of existing Cerberus hidden facilities, but also disperses the risk of, say, Aria (or anyone else) launching a blockade of the Omega 4 relay to hinder Cerberus.

Since all derivative mechanical technology demonstrated or implied by the reapers to this point falls far short of being able to transport large amounts of mass instantly across the galaxy..."

Valid theory. But is choke point choke point if it's passable only by single faction? No, it's a gate.

It's still a choke point. The two aren't mutually exclusive: one of the necessities of blockading, after all, is to prevent entry or exit into the gates.

Blockade at O-4 would require foreknowledge(of CB) and large investment in Terminus systems.

Actually, it'd be very cheap, relatively speaking, since there's no risk of running around the blockade. There's only one relay to guard. Cerberus doesn't have an armada, and picket ships/anti-entry defenses (like, say, staitonary missile platforms) aren't easy to overcome.

The political costs of Terminus action are higher than the economic costs, and Aria is nothing if not mercantile: even if the council wouldn't act openly, they could easily outbid Cerberus and pay Aria to shut down access to the relay on their behalf. And since Shepard, his crew, and the people they've informed would know and be able to have already spread the information about beyond the Omega 4 relay, the knowledge of Cerberus interests behind the relay wouldn't be secure either.

Even Aria or the Council would think twice before doing it. Besides, CB surroundings is Cerb. Territ[ory.

It doesn't matter what's on the far side of the Omega 4 relay: Cerberus can be blocked from ther from the NEAR side of the relay. There doesn't need to be a single Council usage of the Omega 4 relay to trap and blockade all the Cerberus research developments from coming out. (Well, data could be transmitted, but you know what I mean.)

[nevar00]

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't Grayson download some vague classified files for the Reapers to see in Retribution at the institute? I haven't read the book for a while but I seem to recall that happening.

[LordShrike]

I'm not quoting, too mainstream.
Okay, okay. So they COULD Blockade O-4.(like i did not know...) It just does not make much sense, considering that blockading it would require fleet on behalf of Aria.(Discounting Council as a matter of course.) Is she willing to invest all that to something indefinately? I think not. She has a "business" to run after all. (Piracy and smuggling require those ships.) And blockade requires time to be effective.
You said it yourself: Nothing if not mercantile.

[nevar00]

Saphra Deden wrote...

nevar00 wrote...

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't Grayson download some vague classified files for the Reapers to see in Retribution at the institute? I haven't read the book for a while but I seem to recall that happening.

He downloaded information in human biotics. Not a huge deal anyway.

Regardless, this can all be blamed on Anderson and his turian friends. Cerberus took every precaution to keep Grayson contained, but they couldn't hope to fight off a turian fleet kicking down their door.

Thank you, Paragons!

Oh, nevermind then.  I was going to say, if they took some incredibly classified documents, you could already say the base was created more trouble than anything you could get out of it, lol. 

While Anderson and the Turians take some of the blame, had TIM been halfway competent they never would have found the base, nevermind gotten into it.  Hell if TIM was remotely competent Grayson would have had a 'self destruct button' implanted into him from the beginning. 

Modifié par nevar00, 04 mars 2011 - 05:16 .