Well, paragon Shepard would have the Council fleet and Rachni fleet and maybe even Krogan and Quarian fleets going in with the Alliance. So they would all likely be crippled together.
And if renegade Shep simply stood back and watched the Earth burn, that doesn't say much for the typical renegade human-centric view point. Its decidedly Cerberus-centric but even renegade Shep isn't a Cerberus stooge. No, what will happen in a renegade playthrough is that instead of the alien fleets saving Earth, Cerberus will pull a rabbit out of the hat and save humanity while the aliens hang back.
In a paragon playthough, aliens save the Earth and the alliance and Earth become 100% committed to interstellar cooperation. In a renegade playthough, the aliens hang back (like we did at the Citadel) and Cerberus saves the day, causing a huge uprise in xenophobia and making Cerberus the most powerful political entity on Earth.
Would you be pissed if Earth dies and humanity becomes or atleast comes close to becoming an endangered species?
Débuté par
omgodzilla
, avril 05 2011 10:19
Retour en haut
#627
Posté 07 avril 2011 - 02:50
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
The whole Paragon/Renegade thing is Bad/Good thinking, as far as the choices go, if you ask me.Tleining wrote...
That's not Paragon vs. Renegade but good thinking vs. bad thinking.
Supposedly, ME1 and 2's big choices may factor in this too, but ME3's "feature choice" will probably be as I've described.Tleining wrote...
It was pretty much established, that the whole galaxy will have to work together to defeat the Reapers. So the Preparation should be mandatory.
At least i hope that the Renegade/Paragon Choices will be made along the way, convincing the other species to join the fight.
Paragon Ending would be everyone working together and defeating the Reapers (and singing kumba-ya afterwards), Renegade would be humanity using the Collectors Base and defeating the Reapers alone (humans dominate the galaxy)
#628
Posté 07 avril 2011 - 02:56
Nashiktal
-
- Members
- 5 584 messages
Unfortunately Zulu is right.
Paragon and Renegade is "good vs bad" or "saint vs ****" as far as choices go. Its been outlined many times how much better P and R would be if they actually followed the "model soldier" or "makes own rules" kind of person.
Paragon and Renegade is "good vs bad" or "saint vs ****" as far as choices go. Its been outlined many times how much better P and R would be if they actually followed the "model soldier" or "makes own rules" kind of person.
#629
Posté 07 avril 2011 - 03:07
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
To clarify, the paragon may be "good", but it amounts to bad thinking most of the time. The renegade may be "bad" or "evil", but it's good thinking most of the time.Nashiktal wrote...
Unfortunately Zulu is right.
Paragon and Renegade is "good vs bad" or "saint vs ****" as far as choices go. Its been outlined many times how much better P and R would be if they actually followed the "model soldier" or "makes own rules" kind of person.
#630
Posté 07 avril 2011 - 03:16
Tleining
-
- Members
- 1 394 messages
uh, so what you are telling me, is that destroying the Collectors Base is Bad thinking? And that's a fact, not your opinion?
That's why in ME2, the Paragon choice was to head to the Collectors Base right after you learned where it was located. Oh wait...
That's why in ME2, the Paragon choice was to head to the Collectors Base right after you learned where it was located. Oh wait...
Modifié par Tleining, 07 avril 2011 - 03:16 .
#631
Posté 07 avril 2011 - 03:20
redbaron76
-
- Members
- 660 messages
This is all pure speculation. I distinctly remember from one interview by bioware that mass effect will continue after shepards saga is over. So Earth will not get destroyed it will be damaged but not destroyed. SO speculating about something that is not going to happen is speculating.
#632
Posté 07 avril 2011 - 03:34
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Yes.Tleining wrote...
uh, so what you are telling me, is that destroying the Collectors Base is Bad thinking?
In my opinion, it's a fact.Tleining wrote...
And that's a fact, not your opinion?
But let's not derail this thread into the Collector Base choice discussion.
#633
Posté 07 avril 2011 - 03:34
Nashiktal
-
- Members
- 5 584 messages
redbaron76 wrote...
This is all pure speculation. I distinctly remember from one interview by bioware that mass effect will continue after shepards saga is over. So Earth will not get destroyed it will be damaged but not destroyed. SO speculating about something that is not going to happen is speculating.
What does that have to do with the Earth being destroyed or not? Even if the Earth is destroyed, there are still all those human colonies. Not to mention Earth won't be destroyed, just wiped of all advanced life. You can always repopulate it.
#634
Posté 07 avril 2011 - 06:21
OmegaXI
-
- Members
- 997 messages
Yeah Earth is going to have a high body count, but then again so will every, I mean every other planet in the galaxy, Citidal space and the Terminous systems. Every race is going to have a huge population reduction one the reapers invade. Now people who want to let humanity fall because the human race is violent since the start of the human race are missing a big point. That violent nature is part of what got humans to where they are and it will be because of that violent nature that we will beable to fight off the reapers.
#635
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 02:15
James2912
-
- Members
- 1 339 messages
Its hilarious how the OP hates that ME is so human centric yet his thread is one massive human centric discussion.
And I hope other aliens have to make sacrifices, and aren't just free riders of human preparations. As we seem to be the only species preparing it would be very unfair for us to suffer the most.
And I hope other aliens have to make sacrifices, and aren't just free riders of human preparations. As we seem to be the only species preparing it would be very unfair for us to suffer the most.
#636
Guest_Arcian_*
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 02:50
Guest_Arcian_*
Guest_Arcian_*
-
- Guests
Zulu_DFA wrote...
Renegade: take all the time to make all the possible preparations and strike only moments before the Reapers are fully done with Earth. The Alliance takes minimal damage and is back on on its path to galactic dominance in no time, but 11.4 billion of human lives are lost.
Zulu_DFA wrote...
The Alliance takes minimal damage and is back on on its path to galactic dominance in no time, but 11.4 billion of human lives are lost.
Zulu_DFA wrote...
minimal damage
Zulu_DFA wrote...
11.4 billion of human lives are lost.
Zulu_DFA wrote...
back on on its path to galactic dominance in no time.
Zulu_DFA wrote...
11.4 billion of human lives are lost.
Here we go again.
How do you think humanity will enforce galactic domination with a good 95% of its entire population dead? Let's say the collective population outside of Earth lies between 200-600 million. That's 2-6% of Earth's population, which in actuality might be a significantly gross overestimation.
Now, according to you, the entire Alliance infrastructure relies on this 2-6%, which supplies every colony everywhere, PLUS Earth - which, according to your thesis, cannot have any surplus production. In fact, your claim would mean they have a production deficit, which means the infrastructure of Earth relies partly on the colonies to sustain itself.
This makes perfect sense, but not from the angle you play it. Neither Earth nor the colonies are entirely self-sustaining. Both Earth and the colonies satisfy and supply their own demands, but to greatly varying degrees. Their output and input is directly proportional to their size - the colonies doesn't have the same demand, but does not produce as much, either. Both rely on each other for support, which leaves either in a pickle if the other is somehow neutralized.
This must then mean that Earth stands for a significant percentage of Alliance social and military production, economical progress and human resource output, and that Earth is pretty ****ing important in the big picture. The last value is a bit tricky, because its an exponential value unlike the rest. Earth produces people at a rate thousand upon thousands of times faster than all colonies put together, which accounts not only for production and military roles, but also - you guessed it - new colonists. **** over Earth, and you **** over the colonists.
Wars are fought by people. People use the guns made, drive the vehicles and ships constructed and man the bases, stations and outposts built. If you knock out the big people-factory, you're going to have a hard time fighting a war. This was the whole point with the genophage against the krogan, after all.
Therefore, you could say Earth is the Alliance's biggest military asset, because a significant portion of new recruits and staff comes from Earth, not to mention the colonist enrollments.
Now take a good moment and imagine what happens when you destroy the biggest producer of human resources in our airspace?
Here's a hint - you completely **** over ALL your chances to ever fight a war on realistic terms.
You won't have enough people to fill the vacated chunks in your army that the reapers is inevitably going to blow out. Production is going to hell, because the few factories left throughout the colonies will be SEVERLY undermanned. You can cite robotic production lines all you want, robots need supervision just as well as people, plus operators and repair servicemen. Because you can no longer reliably fill those spots at a rate that will allow you to supply your front lines, your war starts to break down.
With production down the drain, you suddenly face a very pressing combat materiel deficit. Those ships, weapons, tools and ground vehicles that the reapers keep destroying? You can no longer supply them faster than they are expended. Give or take a few years, you will no longer have an army to wage wars with. Good luck winning a war without an army. Even if you win against the reapers, GOOD LUCK usurping galactic rule with a tattered, undermanned, unarmed fleet made of cardboard, duct-tape and sweet dreams. This is not Battlestar Galactica. A single ship can't pwn an entire warring species a hundred times more capable and well-armed than you, let alone a whole club of them.
There's an extremely ****ing practical reason why we're supposed to save Earth in ME3, not just because sentimentality over the fact that it's the ancestral home of our species. I mean, seriously. Why do you think they decided to attack Earth first in the first place? Every other species have their infrastructure spread out over a lot of large, decently protected colonies, and they've taken the time to slowly, slowly build up every single important colony to a near-Earth size and production capability. They have evened their significant power over a large number of points - kicking one of them out of business won't do much to budge the grand whole.
But because humans decided that having a huge number of insignificant, undermanned and underproductive colonies makes their collective space penis super-large, we effectively paint our homeworld with a huge arrow that says, "Attack here, everything of importance is here."
This is also why I don't believe BioWare would go out of their way to blow Earth up. I believe that it can be one of the possible endings (super-worst game ending, like everyone plus Shepard dying in ME2), but I doubt they will enforce it, because it would make zero sense unless they're going for a dystopian ending where humans end up as a client species to the entire galaxy.
Whoopdie-****ing-doo.
#637
Guest_Arcian_*
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 02:52
Guest_Arcian_*
Guest_Arcian_*
-
- Guests
You're being very naive to expect fairness in a war.James2912 wrote...
it would be very unfair for us to suffer the most.
#638
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 02:57
ISpeakTheTruth
-
- Members
- 1 642 messages
I actually would like a decision to occur in the game where we can decide to either defend the Earth saving it or choosing to save another system that has maybe 10x the population and whoever you don't support gets destroyed.
That would be a nice moral choice. Being a human some would want to defend their home planet, but there are far more lives to be lost if you don't defend the alien system.
That would be a nice moral choice. Being a human some would want to defend their home planet, but there are far more lives to be lost if you don't defend the alien system.
#639
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:07
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
Well said, Arcian.
Another point: Earth is the only major human world the Alliance doesn't really have to spend any money or time defending. The reason is that Earth defends itself.
It's a massive world that supplies you with new colonists and credits and you don't even need to protect it much because no pirates are going to try and raid it.
Not so with the other colonies excluding Bekenstein.
Another point: Earth is the only major human world the Alliance doesn't really have to spend any money or time defending. The reason is that Earth defends itself.
It's a massive world that supplies you with new colonists and credits and you don't even need to protect it much because no pirates are going to try and raid it.
Not so with the other colonies excluding Bekenstein.
#640
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:09
Almostfaceman
-
- Members
- 5 458 messages
Arcian wrote...
But because humans decided that having a huge number of insignificant, undermanned and underproductive colonies makes their collective space penis super-large, we effectively paint our homeworld with a huge arrow that says, "Attack here, everything of importance is here."
This is also why I don't believe BioWare would go out of their way to blow Earth up. I believe that it can be one of the possible endings (super-worst game ending, like everyone plus Shepard dying in ME2), but I doubt they will enforce it, because it would make zero sense unless they're going for a dystopian ending where humans end up as a client species to the entire galaxy.
Whoopdie-****ing-doo.
Very well said, Arcian. I would only add that Earth is in it's infancy regarding colonization. There hasn't been the time yet to spread out to other colonies as other species have. So all of humanity's eggs being in one basket isn't really a "choice" at this point it's more a "state of growth" as far as I see it.
Modifié par Almostfaceman, 08 avril 2011 - 03:11 .
#641
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:12
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
Another thing to remember: it was Earth who built the initial Alliance fleet. Earth did that before there were any colonies out there producing anything. That should tell you what kind of industrial output Earth is capable of.
#642
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:13
Tleining
-
- Members
- 1 394 messages
@ Arcian
one more time, you can't just take those 11 Billion people and assume that they work for the Alliance, or their work benefits the Alliance somehow. Only a few Nations actually support the Alliance, we have no idea, how many people live in those.
Furthermore, the whole idea of minimal damage to the Fleet is based on a combined attack by the Citadel Fleet. So yes, 11 Billion people would die, which would be a tragedy, but the structural damage to the Fleet would be minimal. So there would be no need to rebuild the fleet or the massive chunks that were taken out of it.
Maybe I've been influenced by other Sci-Fi-Series, but from comments made by several characters in ME1 and 2, i believe that the colonies don't receive much goods from earth. They gather ressources and send them back to earth, but goods that help them only arrive months after they are needed.
Aside from that, i don't think the earth would be destroyed as in blown up. But rather bombarded from space and made uninhabitable for Centuries to come. At least that's how i took "earth dying".
edit: @ Saphra Deden
the first Alliance Fleet was pretty much old freighters. And those were built after Outposts on Mars and Pluto were created. The Fleet that was able to fight of enemies was created after Arcturus Station had been built. So Ressources came from all over the solar system and some colonies.
one more time, you can't just take those 11 Billion people and assume that they work for the Alliance, or their work benefits the Alliance somehow. Only a few Nations actually support the Alliance, we have no idea, how many people live in those.
Furthermore, the whole idea of minimal damage to the Fleet is based on a combined attack by the Citadel Fleet. So yes, 11 Billion people would die, which would be a tragedy, but the structural damage to the Fleet would be minimal. So there would be no need to rebuild the fleet or the massive chunks that were taken out of it.
Maybe I've been influenced by other Sci-Fi-Series, but from comments made by several characters in ME1 and 2, i believe that the colonies don't receive much goods from earth. They gather ressources and send them back to earth, but goods that help them only arrive months after they are needed.
Aside from that, i don't think the earth would be destroyed as in blown up. But rather bombarded from space and made uninhabitable for Centuries to come. At least that's how i took "earth dying".
edit: @ Saphra Deden
the first Alliance Fleet was pretty much old freighters. And those were built after Outposts on Mars and Pluto were created. The Fleet that was able to fight of enemies was created after Arcturus Station had been built. So Ressources came from all over the solar system and some colonies.
Modifié par Tleining, 08 avril 2011 - 03:16 .
#643
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:16
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
Tleining wrote...
Maybe I've been influenced by other Sci-Fi-Series, but from comments made by several characters in ME1 and 2, i believe that the colonies don't receive much goods from earth. They gather ressources and send them back to earth, but goods that help them only arrive months after they are needed.
The goods the colonists recieve from Earth are the ships that transport to them to their colonies, the houses they live in, the refineries they work in, and the fleets that protect them.
#644
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:18
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
Tleining wrote...
edit: @ Saphra Deden
the first Alliance Fleet was pretty much old freighters. And those were built after Outposts on Mars and Pluto were created. The Fleet that was able to fight of enemies was created after Arcturus Station had been built. So Ressources came from all over the solar system and some colonies.
Who built Arcturus station? Earth did. The nations of the Earth created and funded the Alliance. They still do.
Do you understand how fast all that **** was built up? Earth had to do all that. There were no Eden Primes or Terra Nova's or Bekenstein's to do it. They can still and indeed are still doing that.
If you want to make the colonies stronger then losing Earth is the last thing you want to do.
#645
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:26
Almostfaceman
-
- Members
- 5 458 messages
Tleining wrote...
Maybe I've been influenced by other Sci-Fi-Series, but from comments made by several characters in ME1 and 2, i believe that the colonies don't receive much goods from earth. They gather ressources and send them back to earth, but goods that help them only arrive months after they are needed.
Ah, yes. The one example we get of how a colony starts out - Feros - clearly has an Earth company funding and supplying it until it turns its own profit.
I'm not sure how you conclude this vast distance between Earth and the Alliance. The earthlings from Feros are each from individual nations - yet those nations have ceded their authority and worked closely with the Alliance to get those earthlings into outer space. This way, we don't have one nation planting one flag on one planet and another nation planting another flag on another planet. This is cooperation at the highest level. This is nations cedeing their soveriegnty over to the Alliance. In return, these nations work together through the Alliance for the betterment of humanity in general.
#646
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:28
Tleining
-
- Members
- 1 394 messages
@ Saphra Deden
The Ships that transported Colonists to Eden Prime also transported others to other Colonies. They didn't need to be build for each colony. One Freighter flying between Earth and one Colony would be enough to transport Ressources to Earth, and Colonists to the Colonies. That doesn't benefit the Colonies. If the Ressources were used there, they could build cities and grow.
We don't know where the houses and Refineries come from. But we do know that Mechs and Armor is already being built on Space Stations. Away from earth.
I'm not questioning WHO build all that. I'm asking FROM WHAT. Arcturus Station wasn't build on earth, it wasn't build with Ressources form earth, but with Ressources from other Planets.
You don't make people strong by making them depend on you, you make them strong by letting them build their own world.
Take the US as an example. As a Colony everything they produced was send of to England, and nothing they could use came back.
Take modern Africa as example. If you want to make them strong, you need to let them build their own world. Instead, we sell them our stuff, so that they will always need us to survive.
The Ships that transported Colonists to Eden Prime also transported others to other Colonies. They didn't need to be build for each colony. One Freighter flying between Earth and one Colony would be enough to transport Ressources to Earth, and Colonists to the Colonies. That doesn't benefit the Colonies. If the Ressources were used there, they could build cities and grow.
We don't know where the houses and Refineries come from. But we do know that Mechs and Armor is already being built on Space Stations. Away from earth.
I'm not questioning WHO build all that. I'm asking FROM WHAT. Arcturus Station wasn't build on earth, it wasn't build with Ressources form earth, but with Ressources from other Planets.
You don't make people strong by making them depend on you, you make them strong by letting them build their own world.
Take the US as an example. As a Colony everything they produced was send of to England, and nothing they could use came back.
Take modern Africa as example. If you want to make them strong, you need to let them build their own world. Instead, we sell them our stuff, so that they will always need us to survive.
#647
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:32
Kaiser Shepard
-
- Members
- 7 890 messages
To come back on what Zulu says, I agree that Paragon choices, while good in intent, do amount to bad thinking and naiveness. Renegade choices, while not always pretty, tend to erk of the side of being safe rather than sorry; looking at the bigger picture of things.
With Cerberus, however, I'd say that blind trust in a schemer such as TIM is naiveness as well. In my eyes, chessmasters and magnificent bastards are never to be trusted.
With Cerberus, however, I'd say that blind trust in a schemer such as TIM is naiveness as well. In my eyes, chessmasters and magnificent bastards are never to be trusted.
#648
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:40
jamesp81
-
- Members
- 4 051 messages
Tleining wrote...
@ Arcian
one more time, you can't just take those 11 Billion people and assume that they work for the Alliance, or their work benefits the Alliance somehow. Only a few Nations actually support the Alliance, we have no idea, how many people live in those.
Furthermore, the whole idea of minimal damage to the Fleet is based on a combined attack by the Citadel Fleet. So yes, 11 Billion people would die, which would be a tragedy, but the structural damage to the Fleet would be minimal. So there would be no need to rebuild the fleet or the massive chunks that were taken out of it.
Maybe I've been influenced by other Sci-Fi-Series, but from comments made by several characters in ME1 and 2, i believe that the colonies don't receive much goods from earth. They gather ressources and send them back to earth, but goods that help them only arrive months after they are needed.
Aside from that, i don't think the earth would be destroyed as in blown up. But rather bombarded from space and made uninhabitable for Centuries to come. At least that's how i took "earth dying".
edit: @ Saphra Deden
the first Alliance Fleet was pretty much old freighters. And those were built after Outposts on Mars and Pluto were created. The Fleet that was able to fight of enemies was created after Arcturus Station had been built. So Ressources came from all over the solar system and some colonies.
Military vehicles, such as warships, require a lot of maintenance. Most of the money in the Alliance is on Earth. No Earth = no maintenance of your military. Eventually ships will break down and have to be abandoned. It won't take long either.
#649
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:40
Almostfaceman
-
- Members
- 5 458 messages
Tleining wrote...
@ Saphra Deden
The Ships that transported Colonists to Eden Prime also transported others to other Colonies. They didn't need to be build for each colony. One Freighter flying between Earth and one Colony would be enough to transport Ressources to Earth, and Colonists to the Colonies. That doesn't benefit the Colonies. If the Ressources were used there, they could build cities and grow.
We don't know where the houses and Refineries come from. But we do know that Mechs and Armor is already being built on Space Stations. Away from earth.
I'm not questioning WHO build all that. I'm asking FROM WHAT. Arcturus Station wasn't build on earth, it wasn't build with Ressources form earth, but with Ressources from other Planets.
You don't make people strong by making them depend on you, you make them strong by letting them build their own world.
Take the US as an example. As a Colony everything they produced was send of to England, and nothing they could use came back.
Take modern Africa as example. If you want to make them strong, you need to let them build their own world. Instead, we sell them our stuff, so that they will always need us to survive.
Where are you getting the idea that Earth doesn't have any resources? Just because colonies are sending materials to Earth at some point does not indicate in any way that Earth is depleted of resources.
Earth isn't MAKING the colonies be dependent on them - it's how it has started out.
And the U.S. - where do you think the resources and people to start the colonies came from? That's right - England.
#650
Posté 08 avril 2011 - 03:41
Gabey5
-
- Members
- 3 434 messages
No matter what, my first priority is the humans
