864 réponses à ce sujet

[RyuGuitarFreak]

88mphSlayer wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Long story short, Bioware has always gimped Renegades and favored the Paragons. ME2 proved this and it will be shown again in ME3.

How? We've got to obligely work together with Cerberus and the best the Council has ever gave was "Ah yes, reapers"...but wait! They reinstated us as Spectres, which actually got us...nothing!

well to be fair if you killed the council you didn't even get to talk to anybody on the new council, you just talk to Anderson and Udina like you would anyways and that's it

but they did basically remove all consequences from that decision at the end of ME1, kill the council or save the council has less impact on ME2 than whether you finished talking to Conrad Verner

Yes I know it. I guess we'll see consequences of that in ME3 as it has multiples endings, but until now, I don't see how Paragons are favored.

[Golden Owl]

@Almostfaceman....Thanks for the info, appreciated.

[Almostfaceman]

Golden Owl wrote...

@Almostfaceman....Thanks for the info, appreciated.

No problemo.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Arijharn wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

I'm of the opinion that dying with principles is better than living without them.

That would be noble if it was just you who was going to bite the bullet. If you choose to murder them all by your inaction because you don't want to get your 'hands dirty' wouldn't that make you an accessory or accomplice? Wouldn't you be murdering them 'by proxy'?

And what about all those people and species that don't share your morals? I get that you for example, don't accept my decisions, but at least you'll live free from my choice to do what it is you want (even yes, arresting me at a later date). You damn everyone by yours to death (or worse).

And then people like you (not necessarily you of course) have the notion of calling 'us' the morally bankrupt? Such irony!

There's a famous episode of Red Dwarf, where the crew finds a time machine. Shortly after discovering it, they are hailed by their future selves, who say their time drive is malfunctioning, and they need to copy the original in order to fix it.

The crew sees that their future selves have become these immensely powerful, horrible people. They may have everything they ever wanted, but they're jerks who have lost all sense of moral compass, who brag about being friends with history's greatest monsters. The Godwin comes up here, of course, but it's all done for the sake of comedy. The crew decides not to help their future selves, disgusted by what they've become, despite threats from their monstrous counterparts, who say they will attack if not cooperated with. Rimmer utters the immortal line "Better dead than Smeg!" and they blow up the time drive.

It seems like they are all killed, though in a future episode it is revealed they were simply thrown through time and space. Still, If you could save your own life, but knew it meant you'd become best friends with Stalin, and help him with his enemies list, would you do it?

That's the first thing the episode brings up. The second waits for the next season, when it is revealed that blowing up the time drive wasn't suicide at all:

We don't know for sure that acting in this morally questionable way is the only way to win. We all need to admit that, while it's possible that the base is the best path to victory, there is never any way to be certain.

The Question relevant to Mass Effect isn't "if doing something evil is the only way to win, should you do it?" The relevant question is, instead "If doing evil has a chance of helping you win, should you do it?"

[aimlessgun]

MisterJB wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...
Humanity is not making the choice. An incredibly small subset of humanity (on the scale of all humans who have and will be alive) is making that choice, faced with extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

I will not punish the son for the sins of the father. I am deadly sincere about this, it's a big part of my personal morality.

Humanity is composed by the humans who are alive rigth now, we can't say that Humanity does not deserve to be punished just because in some generations, a new Mozart migth come along.
And is this really the legacy you would want to leave for future generations? If need be, kill your neighbour to save yourself.

The proper way would be to save the child and punish the father. However, Shepard can not bring Humanity into Martial court, can he?

It isn't about one new Mozart. It's about the uncountable innocents you are sentencing to death.

You don't think the 50% not sacrificed won't be wracked by horrible survivor guilt? You don't think they'll be punished? You don't think they'll remember that sacrifice with a sorrow so deep that the species will never forget?

MisterJB wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...
YES!
It
is absolutely a matter of numbers. I'd sacrifice a portion of humanity
and save the rest of it than watch the entirety of it die. I'd rather
"taint my own soul" than standby and watch all of our history and
culture turn to dust.

So, when does it stop being acceptable? When we have already killed more humans than we will save?

You can never kill more humans than you save. The Reapers will kill everyone. Every single person you save is better than what happens when the Reapers come. If the choice was between all humans dying, or saving a single Adam and Eve and gooing everyone else, I would choose goo without hesitation, because I saved 2 people, instead of saving nobody.

[Slayer299]

If BW has decided that keeping the CB is now a bad idea I'd actually be annoyed and I've never kept it. I can understand the logic for those who kept it intact and handed it over to TIM, but if BW decides to screw everyone over who did that it would just suck royally.

Honestly I was looking forward to seeing if destroying the CB bit me in the ass or how it was worked out..

[Arijharn]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

I'm of the opinion that dying with principles is better than living without them.

That would be noble if it was just you who was going to bite the bullet. If you choose to murder them all by your inaction because you don't want to get your 'hands dirty' wouldn't that make you an accessory or accomplice? Wouldn't you be murdering them 'by proxy'?

And what about all those people and species that don't share your morals? I get that you for example, don't accept my decisions, but at least you'll live free from my choice to do what it is you want (even yes, arresting me at a later date). You damn everyone by yours to death (or worse).

And then people like you (not necessarily you of course) have the notion of calling 'us' the morally bankrupt? Such irony!

There's a famous episode of Red Dwarf, where the crew finds a time machine. Shortly after discovering it, they are hailed by their future selves, who say their time drive is malfunctioning, and they need to copy the original in order to fix it.

The crew sees that their future selves have become these immensely powerful, horrible people. They may have everything they ever wanted, but they're jerks who have lost all sense of moral compass, who brag about being friends with history's greatest monsters. The Godwin comes up here, of course, but it's all done for the sake of comedy. The crew decides not to help their future selves, disgusted by what they've become, despite threats from their monstrous counterparts, who say they will attack if not cooperated with. Rimmer utters the immortal line "Better dead than Smeg!" and they blow up the time drive.

It seems like they are all killed, though in a future episode it is revealed they were simply thrown through time and space. Still, If you could save your own life, but knew it meant you'd become best friends with Stalin, and help him with his enemies list, would you do it?

That's the first thing the episode brings up. The second waits for the next season, when it is revealed that blowing up the time drive wasn't suicide at all:

We don't know for sure that acting in this morally questionable way is the only way to win. We all need to admit that, while it's possible that the base is the best path to victory, there is never any way to be certain.

The Question relevant to Mass Effect isn't "if doing something evil is the only way to win, should you do it?" The relevant question is, instead "If doing evil has a chance of helping you win, should you do it?"

I want to save people even if it gets me 'dirty.'
You want to ignore saving people if it gets you dirty.

How am I the 'evil' one here?

Is evil not the one who wants or merely causes loss of life? My actions may make me a pariah (this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make, as it is only myself my actions affect in this way) but the benefit is as many people as possible live due to that. You can call me a heartless monster if you wish for working with Cerberus, but at the end of the day you can at least hold philosophical questions as to whether or not I actually am a heartless monster.

Contrastly;

You hold onto your principles as you drag us all into your grave. And how do we know that it will be all of us? Because that's how the Reapers operate. There is no compromise. There is finality. Of course, there will be no philosophical questions whether you're heartless or not, because we'd all be dead (and maybe us humans would all be made into some Reaper...) but frankly, I think most people (yes, even aliens) want to live.

I can't break it down anymore than that I think, although I can say that if you accepted Spectre reinstatement you took vows to safeguard society, but how do you do that if you destroy the best hope (even if that hope is not assured of course) and subsequently get us all killed?

You may be confident that you've made a 60% successful guess as to the outcome as defined by your goals (whatever they may be), but I'm 90% sure (if only because I have made other decisions that I feel best reflect galactic civilisation's hope, whether that be saving the Council, freeing the Rachni Queen and potentially calming tensions between the Geth and the Quarian's. For me; honestly the only indecision I really have is whether or not to cure the Genophage because while I like Wrex and think him pretty honorable, I'm not sure about the rest of his species, and I'm less sure about his species when Wrex inevitably dies of old age (because lets face it, Wrex is so bad ass he could probably survive a direct hit from a Thanix))

Wait, that whole 60%-90% thing sounds like some 'mine's bigger than yours' argument... lemme rephrase quickly (but keep that stupid cheeky joke in) I don't really have any wonders about it. I feel as if I've left less things to 'chance' basically. Like I said earlier, I feel I've as successfully 'hedged-my-bets' as possible, I've fought the Reapers with all I have and am and have left no stone unturned (as things currently stand). While I'm not entirely comfortable handing the base over to Cerberus (especially since they may want to kill me for some crazy reason!) it's better than just destroy it because like you said; we don't know for certain whether anything of value is there (but yeah, I like that we have a Reaper there for many reasons) I also think that no one else would be able to get access to it (being where it is) and frankly, I think the Citadel Council is an old boys club anyway.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Slayer299 wrote...

If BW has decided that keeping the CB is now a bad idea I'd actually be annoyed and I've never kept it. I can understand the logic for those who kept it intact and handed it over to TIM, but if BW decides to screw everyone over who did that it would just suck royally.

Honestly I was looking forward to seeing if destroying the CB bit me in the ass or how it was worked out..

From a metagaming perspective, I think the result will be this: a net gain in strategic intelligence for humanity, with the added result of us having to deal with a version of Cerberus that is riddled with indoctrinated people, and that will also make the rest of the galaxy wary of us.

Just a guess, of course. But I don't think any one decision in the whole history of Mass Effect will be a black and white, "win or lose" situation (except not killing Wrex, which so far has shown no downside). And I don't think that something as major as the CB will even be a net loss.  Hopefully it will favor the priorities of those who kept it - those who value strategic power over morality and public image.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Arijharn wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

I'm of the opinion that dying with principles is better than living without them.

That would be noble if it was just you who was going to bite the bullet. If you choose to murder them all by your inaction because you don't want to get your 'hands dirty' wouldn't that make you an accessory or accomplice? Wouldn't you be murdering them 'by proxy'?

And what about all those people and species that don't share your morals? I get that you for example, don't accept my decisions, but at least you'll live free from my choice to do what it is you want (even yes, arresting me at a later date). You damn everyone by yours to death (or worse).

And then people like you (not necessarily you of course) have the notion of calling 'us' the morally bankrupt? Such irony!

There's a famous episode of Red Dwarf, where the crew finds a time machine. Shortly after discovering it, they are hailed by their future selves, who say their time drive is malfunctioning, and they need to copy the original in order to fix it.

The crew sees that their future selves have become these immensely powerful, horrible people. They may have everything they ever wanted, but they're jerks who have lost all sense of moral compass, who brag about being friends with history's greatest monsters. The Godwin comes up here, of course, but it's all done for the sake of comedy. The crew decides not to help their future selves, disgusted by what they've become, despite threats from their monstrous counterparts, who say they will attack if not cooperated with. Rimmer utters the immortal line "Better dead than Smeg!" and they blow up the time drive.

It seems like they are all killed, though in a future episode it is revealed they were simply thrown through time and space. Still, If you could save your own life, but knew it meant you'd become best friends with Stalin, and help him with his enemies list, would you do it?

That's the first thing the episode brings up. The second waits for the next season, when it is revealed that blowing up the time drive wasn't suicide at all:

We don't know for sure that acting in this morally questionable way is the only way to win. We all need to admit that, while it's possible that the base is the best path to victory, there is never any way to be certain.

The Question relevant to Mass Effect isn't "if doing something evil is the only way to win, should you do it?" The relevant question is, instead "If doing evil has a chance of helping you win, should you do it?"

I want to save people even if it gets me 'dirty.'
You want to ignore saving people if it gets you dirty.

How am I the 'evil' one here?

Is evil not the one who wants or merely causes loss of life? My actions may make me a pariah (this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make, as it is only myself my actions affect in this way) but the benefit is as many people as possible live due to that. You can call me a heartless monster if you wish for working with Cerberus, but at the end of the day you can at least hold philosophical questions as to whether or not I actually am a heartless monster.

I'm not saying YOU are evil. I am saying putting a billion people in a goo vat is an evil act. It may be balanced out by a good result, but it's still a bad thing, unless all those people are volunteers.

I don't think that getting a little darkness on you in order to save people is a bad thing. I'm saying that you have to acknowledge that you're getting a little darkness on you. If I had to stab Liara in order to save the galaxy, I'd stab her. But i'd recognize that I was doing a bad thing to accomplish a good goal. Stabbing her would still be bad, though. I would feel like I had done an evil thing.

Also, all the renegades seem to assume that the sacrifice of morality is neccesary, and that it will definitely provide a benefit.

Example: Some computer guy has run some projections: He can't tell you what is true, but he can tell you the breakdown of his simulations

In 40% of the scenarios where we don't murder 5 billion people, we win.
In 50% of the scenarios where we murder 5 billion people, we win.
In 70% of the scenarios where we murder 10 billion people, we win.

That's the kind of questions we're asking here. Is it worth it to murder 5 billion people to get a 10% chance of winning. If it is, then is it worth it to murder 10 billion to get a 20% greater chance of winning? Ok, now replace that 5 billion figure with 1 million. It looks a lot different, doesn't it? Now replace it with stabbing Liara... now the decision is pretty easy, yeah?

But in all the cases we're talking about, we don't know the figures. Renegades assume that in any case where we murder a bunch of people, we are helping. Paragons assume that, in cases when we don't know how much murdering people will benefit us in the end, we err on the side of not murdering.

If you could prove conclusively to me "If you murder this billion people, I 100% guarantee everyone else will live. If you don't, I 100% guarantee they will all die," then yes, I'd murder em. I'd think I was doing an evil thing when I did it, but I would do it for the greater good. That isn't what's at stake in the scenarios we are given, though. In the scenarios we are given, the question is this: will you do this evil thing that you suspect will benefit you, even if you have absolutely no evidece as to whether or not it will work, or how much it will help? 

If we are given clear numbers, when doing the evil thing has a chance of saving a certain number of lives, then the chioce becomes harder. When I have no evidence at all either way, no way of having any idea whether doing the evil thing will help me, why shouldn't I err on the side of good?

[Arijharn]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Just a guess, of course. But I don't think any one decision in the whole history of Mass Effect will be a black and white, "win or lose" situation (except not killing Wrex, which so far has shown no downside). And I don't think that something as major as the CB will even be a net loss.  Hopefully it will favor the priorities of those who kept it - those who value strategic power over morality and public image.

While I strongly object to your mention of 'morality' in this context, I generally agree. You aren't going to suddenly be unable to stop the Reapers if you destroy the base, but keeping it may make it easier. On the flipside, I doubt keeping the base would somehow render other species unable to support you (if only because you can make otherwise Paragon decisions yet keep the base).

[Saaziel]

Arijharn wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

I'm of the opinion that dying with principles is better than living without them.

That would be noble if it was just you who was going to bite the bullet. If you choose to murder them all by your inaction because you don't want to get your 'hands dirty' wouldn't that make you an accessory or accomplice? Wouldn't you be murdering them 'by proxy'?

And what about all those people and species that don't share your morals? I get that you for example, don't accept my decisions, but at least you'll live free from my choice to do what it is you want (even yes, arresting me at a later date). You damn everyone by yours to death (or worse).

And then people like you (not necessarily you of course) have the notion of calling 'us' the morally bankrupt? Such irony!

I don't see this as a matter of morality. Everything ends;  No matter how "dirty" my hands get , i could not change that fact.

I can't find the proper words, crudely I'd say that a life* of principles is its own reward , regardless or how or why one dies. A life free of principles is worthless. This cuts both ways as there is no point in actively eliminating worthless things , as they are worthless. Consequentially there is equally no reason to try and save them . Therefore the death of any is either meaningful or irrelevant.

* "Life" in this text is used boradly enough to include both individuals and species.

[PlumPaul93]

I thought it was common knowledge that renagade=bad choice?

[aimlessgun]

Saaziel wrote...
I can't find the proper words, crudely I'd say that a life* of principles is its own reward , regardless or how or why one dies. A life free of principles is worthless.

And I would gladly make my life worthless if it meant that uncountable others could be go on living their rewarding lives of principle.

But as CGG says, the interesting question is when it comes to uncertainties of whether your ditching of principles will pan out or not.

[Dr. Nexas]

Wait giving the dangerous Reaper tech to the pack of idiots whose science experiments always blow up in their faces is a bad decision?

Who'd a thunk it?

Modifié par Dr. Nexas, 09 avril 2011 - 02:57 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Arijharn wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Just a guess, of course. But I don't think any one decision in the whole history of Mass Effect will be a black and white, "win or lose" situation (except not killing Wrex, which so far has shown no downside). And I don't think that something as major as the CB will even be a net loss.  Hopefully it will favor the priorities of those who kept it - those who value strategic power over morality and public image.

While I strongly object to your mention of 'morality' in this context, I generally agree. You aren't going to suddenly be unable to stop the Reapers if you destroy the base, but keeping it may make it easier. On the flipside, I doubt keeping the base would somehow render other species unable to support you (if only because you can make otherwise Paragon decisions yet keep the base).

True, from a design perspective (ignoring all morality, and looking only at the functionality of the decision-making system) I think that all decisions will have a + or - Strategic might value, and a + or - Public Image value. There might even be separate public image values for either race...The Salarians are horrified by your abuse of science, but the Krogan don't give a crap.

In the end, how well humanity does in the battle, and their political status after, will be determined by your strategic value score. How many people aid you and how the galaxy views you after the battle will be determined by the Public Image score.

I think it may be possible to win even if half the galaxy hates you, and you get almost no help from aliens whatsoever. It'll be hard, but possible.

Honestly, if I were re-doing Mass Effect, I'd make the Renegade decisions more tempting. Like, I can logic my way out of all of them. Heck, the ONLY ones that are hard were the first one (save the council? I thought that would let Sovereign get away, at the time), and the Geth one. Both of those, I think the Paragon choice is illogical, or at the very least, I don't think either one is any better.

If what you were suggesting upthread were true... if there were a point where I actually had to choose to kill innocent people in order to save more... well that would be interesting. There hasn't been a situation like that so far, even the Destiny Ascension was a net gain for sentient life. But the first time I played through I didn't save her, because I thought I was just saving four people at a cost of thousands, instead of saving ten thousand at the cost of three thousand, or whatever those numbers were.

Actually, saving the Destiny Ascention is the kind of choice you're praising for being incredibly noble - I killed those three thousand alliance soldiers to save the five thousand people on the Destiny Ascention. So in that case, the Paragon choice was the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Arijharn]

Ohh... I'm terribly confused now...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I'm not saying YOU are evil. I am saying putting a billion people in a goo vat is an evil act. It may be balanced out by a good result, but it's still a bad thing, unless all those people are volunteers.

Oh, I think we've all acknowledged that handing it over to Cerberus may be considered a bad thing. But, I don't think it's such an absolute really. 

I subscribe to Saphra's mode of thinking as well. Unfortunately it's a numbers thing, but we are fighting a threat unlike anything else we've fought before. Some people hold onto their ethics even tighter because they matter the most during such periods of adversity, but I think that ethics are mutable due to circumstance, and that survival is basically our primary biological function if nothing else.

Just as much as I think you'd have problems with me killing you, I think society would have problems if I decided to kill it, whether it was intentional or not. I think that if certain ethics or morals succeeds in not only killing its creator's, but potentially other species as well, then that ethic or moral must be flawed to a certain degree.

CGG wrote...
Also, all the renegades seem to assume that the sacrifice of morality is neccesary, and that it will definitely provide a benefit.

I don't know of a single renegade (or quasi-renegade) who argues our point predicated on definites but rather more likely. Why is it more likely? Because of events or devices that are shown in the game's narrative. We know that ship to ship, we are hopelessly outmatched by the Reapers, we know that in terms of weapon technology, we are hopelessly outmatched once again by the Reapers.
We view divesting the CB of it's secrets as (the best) means to counter-balance this woeful circumstance. If Kal'Reegar fears that any combat operations between the Quarian fleet and the Geth would result in the Admiralty getting nothing back other than 'scrap metal' to what chance do you subscribe ours vs. the Reapers? considering we know that it took a fleet to stop Sovereign and even then that is with some degree of contention. 

Yes at it's most basic, it's mathematics, and at the moment we are going to get squashed.

[Dr. Nexas]

If it makes you Renegade players feel any better, it looks like sparing the Rachni is going to bite us Paragons in the ass.

Modifié par Dr. Nexas, 09 avril 2011 - 03:15 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

If it makes you Renegade players feel any better, it looks like sparing the Rachni is going to bite us Paragons in the ass.

Damn you, Orson Scott Card! Damn you, Ender Wiggins!

[PlumPaul93]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

If it makes you Renegade players feel any better, it looks like sparing the Rachni is going to bite us Paragons in the ass.

how so?

[lolfanboi]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

If it makes you Renegade players feel any better, it looks like sparing the Rachni is going to bite us Paragons in the ass.

You don't know that.

[Dr. Nexas]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Dr. Nexas wrote...

If it makes you Renegade players feel any better, it looks like sparing the Rachni is going to bite us Paragons in the ass.

how so?

The magazine scans show a Rachni husk so the Reapers probably found them and reindoctrinated them.

[Inverness Moon]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

If it makes you Renegade players feel any better, it looks like sparing the Rachni is going to bite us Paragons in the ass.

I'm a renegade player and I don't see why that would be. The Rachni Wars were obviously seeded by indoctrination, I don't see the reapers suddenly discovering them again, when noone knows where they are, and indoctrinating them again to fight against everyone else.

Dr. Nexas wrote...

The magazine scans show a Rachni husk so the Reapers probably found them and reindoctrinated them.

That doesn't mean all rachni are husks anymore than human husks means all humans are husks and with the reapers.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 09 avril 2011 - 03:22 .

[Almostfaceman]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

If it makes you Renegade players feel any better, it looks like sparing the Rachni is going to bite us Paragons in the ass.

It is way too soon to jump to conclusions based on an image of a rachni husk.  That members of a race get huskified in the Reaper conflict in no way automatically means that whole race gets huskified, or even indoctrinated.

[Dr. Nexas]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dr. Nexas wrote...

If it makes you Renegade players feel any better, it looks like sparing the Rachni is going to bite us Paragons in the ass.

It is way too soon to jump to conclusions based on an image of a rachni husk.  That members of a race get huskified in the Reaper conflict in no way automatically means that whole race gets huskified, or even indoctrinated.

Its also to soon to jump to conclusions about the Collector base as well. Just because Cerberus is out to get Shepard doesn't mean they didn't find anything usefull. 

[Arijharn]

Saaziel wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

I'm of the opinion that dying with principles is better than living without them.

That would be noble if it was just you who was going to bite the bullet. If you choose to murder them all by your inaction because you don't want to get your 'hands dirty' wouldn't that make you an accessory or accomplice? Wouldn't you be murdering them 'by proxy'?

And what about all those people and species that don't share your morals? I get that you for example, don't accept my decisions, but at least you'll live free from my choice to do what it is you want (even yes, arresting me at a later date). You damn everyone by yours to death (or worse).

And then people like you (not necessarily you of course) have the notion of calling 'us' the morally bankrupt? Such irony!

I don't see this as a matter of morality. Everything ends;  No matter how "dirty" my hands get , i could not change that fact.

I can't find the proper words, crudely I'd say that a life* of principles is its own reward , regardless or how or why one dies. A life free of principles is worthless. This cuts both ways as there is no point in actively eliminating worthless things , as they are worthless. Consequentially there is equally no reason to try and save them . Therefore the death of any is either meaningful or irrelevant.

* "Life" in this text is used boradly enough to include both individuals and species.

Right, but surely you wouldn't want to hasten the process. Wouldn't it be better to let people die of old age, or of any age... just not a death that's somehow orchestrated by the Reapers who you have a position (a better position than most to be fair) to stop?

I even think there's a difference between a woman dying after getting hit by a drunk cab driver (or automated pilot malfunction?) and another woman getting liquified by a Thanix weapon strike, even if both instances happen at the exact same time.