864 réponses à ce sujet

[Almostfaceman]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

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. 

Why are you switching topics - I directly addressed the rachni.

Do you know anything about what I've said regarding the Collector base?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Arijharn wrote...

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.

I think we're finally reaching an understanding here, which is awesome and happens rarely. I wasn't trying to say that you, reaching your conclusion, are incorrect. Rather I am saying that I viewed all the same evidence, and drew a different conclusion.

In destroying the base, my thought process was not "well, I'll sacrifice a few million human lives because I don't want blood on my hands." It was "Well, there's no way of knowing whether it will help or not. I think it's more likely to not  help very much, so I'll blow it."

If you looked at the same scenario and thought "I think this will very probably save lives," while fully weighing all the same variables I looked at, then more power to you! You aren't wrong, or rather - there's no way of determining which of us is wrong yet.

I just want Renegades to acknowledge that Paragons are not deliberately sacrificing lives, in most cases. We are saying that, in cases where we don't think it's likely to help, or where we think there's a 50-50 shot of it helping, it's best to err on the side of what we think is right, morally. In any case where it was clear to us that doing the Renegade thing would save lives, I think more people would do the Renegade.

So far, only about 36% of players decide the base is worth keeping. If I were rewriting the game, I'd present some additional evidence that the base would be WORTH keeping. Like having Mordin looking at a collector corpse, say "Oh, if only we could study the base!" If Mordin told me it was worth it, I'd believe him, and the decision would be a lot tougher.

Arijharn wrote...

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.

I was just confused, because you painted the Paragons as knowingly sacrificing lives for their honor, while you were knowingly making a moral compromise to save lives. If that's not how you actually think of it, then great!

In my opinion, and just in my opinion, our chances versus the Reapers don't directly relate to keeping the CB. I think we'd get better results from Ilos, or from studying that one planet where they supposedly shot a Reaper with a meteor, or from studying the Mass Relays or the Citadel themselves. I believe there are a hundred projects more worthy of funding.

I can understand how you could look at the CB and say "this is our best bet." I just don't draw the same conclusion. And we have no way of knowing who is correct. If you believe the CB offers you the best chance of winning, then keep it! I was just bringing up all the factors that I usually consider, in case you hadn't thought of one of them previously. If you've considered everything I brought up, and still conclude that the CB is the best bet, than I respect that decision. I just reached a different one, myself.

[Dr. Nexas]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dr. Nexas wrote...

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. 

Why are you switching topics - I directly addressed the rachni.

Do you know anything about what I've said regarding the Collector base?

Because this topic is about wild speculation on the Collector base and how Bioware always punishes the Renegades 

[Golden Owl]

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!! I hope not...I'm really looking forward to fighting side by side with them in ME3.

[Almostfaceman]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Dr. Nexas wrote...

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. 

Why are you switching topics - I directly addressed the rachni.

Do you know anything about what I've said regarding the Collector base?

Because this topic is about wild speculation on the Collector base and how Bioware always punishes the Renegades 

Yeah, but, where in our conversation did I jump to conclusions regarding the Collector base?  You told me it's "too soon to jump to conclusions about the Collector base" as if I had done so.  That's what threw me.

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 09 avril 2011 - 04:00 .

[Dr. Nexas]

@Almostfaceman Sorry about the miscommunication. I was more addressing everyone who is jumping to wild conclusions.

[aimlessgun]

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.

This would be extremely unfortunate since my Renegade saved the Rachni as a renegade decision (who cares if she kills a few people, worth the chance of a race of killer bugs personally loyal to Shepard).

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

Hmm that would be interesting, and there's no reason they couldn't retroactively assign those values at this stage in development. Though maybe some people might be annoyed that they weren't informed during gameplay, if the values all made sense it wouldn't be a big issue.

Modifié par aimlessgun, 09 avril 2011 - 04:00 .

[Almostfaceman]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

@Almostfaceman Sorry about the miscommunication. I was more addressing everyone who is jumping to wild conclusions.

Roger that no worries.

[Markinator_123]

Enough I though I support keeping the base, Bioware has a bias towards paragons. Oh well! Their game their rules

[CulturalGeekGirl]

aimlessgun 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.

This would be extremely unfortunate since my Renegade saved the Rachni as a renegade decision (who cares if she kills a few people, worth the chance of a race of killer bugs personally loyal to Shepard).

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

Hmm that would be interesting, and there's no reason they couldn't retroactively assign those values at this stage in development. Though maybe some people might be annoyed that they weren't informed during gameplay, if the values all made sense it wouldn't be a big issue.

Here is how I would do it if I ran the Zoo: 

At least seven endings: 

Paraon PERFECT
Renegade PERFECT
Neutral GOOD
Paragon OK
Renegade OK
Paragon BAD
Renegade BAD

All of these will have very small additional variations depending on decisions - like if you get the Renegade OK ending, but you didn't sell legion, it'll cut to him during the end scene, and maybe tell you something good about the Geth. Same thing with the council - who ends up being there at the end will depend on whether you saved them, etc.

If you play through ME3, with the default save (or better), do every sidequest, and don't act like an idiot (intentionally losing loyalty, intentionally getting a squadmate killed off when you can save them), you will get at least the Good ending.

If you play through, act like an idiot sometimes, skip some sidequests and upgrades, but still try pretty hard, you'll get one of the OK endings, based on which side you favored during the game. In these endings you lose some squaddies, earth takes a lot of damage, etc. The main difference is how strong earth is at the end vs. how respected you are in the galaxy.

To get the bad ending, you'd almost have to try... like with the Suicide mission. Either you just played the plot missions straight through while doing few of the optional missions, or you read a guide on how to screw up.

Now, in my mind the Renegade PERFECT and Paragon PERFECT ones are not saves where you've made decisions exclusively along one particular line. It will be a bit mixed - some lucky people will achieve it on their first playthrough but a lot of people will use guides later on to get these ones. It could be that to get either of these, you need to have Saved the Rachni Queen but killed the Heretic Geth, or vice versa. They aren't a lot better than the GOOD ending, so much that you feel like you missed out if you did the GOOD ending, but they're enough better that the Trufans may want to play again to get this.

You could also have True Renegade and True Paragon endings, which you can only get if you took exclusively one side ort the other. But I'd make these only a slight variation on one of the central ones, because most people seem to like a little shades of gray from time to time.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 avril 2011 - 04:26 .

[NoUserNameHere]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

aimlessgun 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.

This would be extremely unfortunate since my Renegade saved the Rachni as a renegade decision (who cares if she kills a few people, worth the chance of a race of killer bugs personally loyal to Shepard).

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

Hmm that would be interesting, and there's no reason they couldn't retroactively assign those values at this stage in development. Though maybe some people might be annoyed that they weren't informed during gameplay, if the values all made sense it wouldn't be a big issue.

Here is how I would do it if I ran the Zoo: 

At least seven endings: 

Paraon PERFECT
Renegade PERFECT
Neutral GOOD
Paragon OK
Renegade OK
Paragon BAD
Renegade BAD

All of these will have very small additional variations depending on decisions - like if you get the Renegade OK ending, but you didn't sell legion, it'll cut to him during the end scene, and maybe tell you something good about the Geth. Same thing with the council - who ends up being there at the end will depend on whether you saved them, etc.

If you play through ME3, with the default save (or better), do every sidequest, and don't act like an idiot (intentionally losing loyalty, intentionally getting a squadmate killed off when you can save them), you will get at least the Good ending.

If you play through, act like an idiot sometimes, skip some sidequests and upgrades, but still try pretty hard, you'll get one of the OK endings, based on which side you favored during the game. In these endings you lose some squaddies, earth takes a lot of damage, etc. The main difference is how strong earth is at the end vs. how respected you are in the galaxy.

To get the bad ending, you'd almost have to try... like with the Suicide mission. Either you just played the plot missions straight through while doing few of the optional missions, or you read a guide on how to screw up.

Now, in my mind the Renegade PERFECT and Paragon PERFECT ones are not saves where you've made decisions exclusively along one particular line. It will be a bit mixed - some lucky people will achieve it on their first playthrough but a lot of people will use guides later on to get these ones. It could be that to get either of these, you need to have Saved the Rachni Queen but killed the Heretic Geth, or vice versa. They aren't a lot better than the GOOD ending, so much that you feel like you missed out if you did the GOOD ending, but they're enough better that the Trufans may want to play again to get this.

You could also have True Renegade and True Paragon endings, which you can only get if you took exclusively one side ort the other. But I'd make these only a slight variation on one of the central ones, because most people seem to like a little shades of gray from time to time.

Hmmm. A good place to start.

I'd add "Paragon/Renegade - Sacrificial/Death," "Reapers Win," and "Renegade - take over Cerberus" to the mix.

[aimlessgun]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

aimlessgun 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.

This would be extremely unfortunate since my Renegade saved the Rachni as a renegade decision (who cares if she kills a few people, worth the chance of a race of killer bugs personally loyal to Shepard).

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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.

Hmm that would be interesting, and there's no reason they couldn't retroactively assign those values at this stage in development. Though maybe some people might be annoyed that they weren't informed during gameplay, if the values all made sense it wouldn't be a big issue.

Here is how I would do it if I ran the Zoo: 

At least seven endings: 

Paraon PERFECT
Renegade PERFECT
Neutral GOOD
Paragon OK
Renegade OK
Paragon BAD
Renegade BAD

All of these will have very small additional variations depending on decisions - like if you get the Renegade OK ending, but you didn't sell legion, it'll cut to him during the end scene, and maybe tell you something good about the Geth. Same thing with the council - who ends up being there at the end will depend on whether you saved them, etc.

If you play through ME3, with the default save (or better), do every sidequest, and don't act like an idiot (intentionally losing loyalty, intentionally getting a squadmate killed off when you can save them), you will get at least the Good ending.

If you play through, act like an idiot sometimes, skip some sidequests and upgrades, but still try pretty hard, you'll get one of the OK endings, based on which side you favored during the game. In these endings you lose some squaddies, earth takes a lot of damage, etc. The main difference is how strong earth is at the end vs. how respected you are in the galaxy.

To get the bad ending, you'd almost have to try... like with the Suicide mission. Either you just played the plot missions straight through while doing few of the optional missions, or you read a guide on how to screw up.

Now, in my mind the Renegade PERFECT and Paragon PERFECT ones are not saves where you've made decisions exclusively along one particular line. It will be a bit mixed - some lucky people will achieve it on their first playthrough but a lot of people will use guides later on to get these ones. It could be that to get either of these, you need to have Saved the Rachni Queen but killed the Heretic Geth, or vice versa. They aren't a lot better than the GOOD ending, so much that you feel like you missed out if you did the GOOD ending, but they're enough better that the Trufans may want to play again to get this.

You could also have True Renegade and True Paragon endings, which you can only get if you took exclusively one side ort the other. But I'd make these only a slight variation on one of the central ones, because most people seem to like a little shades of gray from time to time.

Hmmm. A good place to start.

I'd add "Paragon/Renegade - Sacrificial/Death," "Reapers Win," and "Renegade - take over Cerberus" to the mix.

Nice ideas.

Sacrificial death could be part of Bad or on it's own. I guess sacrificing yourself could also happen with a Good ending for everyone else though.

The Reapers Win ending would be fun, but really that's basically the ending everytime you die in combat I'm not sure how you would inject that ending in a way that made sense.

I think 'take over Cerberus' could fall under Renegade Perfect maybe?

Modifié par aimlessgun, 09 avril 2011 - 04:42 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Soahfreako wrote...

You also won't be helping defeat the Reapers, since, you know, you'll be indoctrinated if you even tried to study their tech.

Minus, of course, all the times it doesn't happen.

Not all Reaper technology indoctrinates. Technology is mechanical systems, not magic.

[Dean_the_Young]

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?"

In the question between bad and worse, yes. Side with bad.

[Dave of Canada]

While speculation, the Collector Base most likely doesn't have indocrination fields. The Reapers barely had any defenses on the base itself because they fully expected the Omega 4 Relay, Occulus (Occuli?) and Collector Ship to defend the Collector Base, there was barely any defenses aside from the personnel on the ship by itself because they fully expected nobody to make it there.

We've also heard countless times that indocrinated people eventually transform into drooling idiots, what would the Reapers have to accomplish by being able to indocrinate any salvage crew that happens to arrive in the Collector Base? They'd eventally become mindless and serve no purpose to the Reapers, they aren't numerous enough to restart the Collector Base's operation and all they'd be able to accomplish is probably Huskify themselves.

Hell, the novel itself has Cerberus with Collector Base technology (destroyed or not) and you know what? They aren't indocrinated! They are using it for studying the effects of indocrination and modification on Grayson, which means The Illusive Man is using the Base's technology exactly as he promised. Unless you're telling me TIM and Cerberus are indocrinated in trying to oppose the Reapers and find ways to combat indocrination?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 avril 2011 - 05:41 .

[lovgreno]

If I got the intention of the writers right both keeping and blowing up the base was intended to be a "bad" choice. A desperate gamble with unknown, possibly dire consequences. You can find reasons for seeing both options as the wrong or right choice if you realy want to. But of course it takes some imagination and speculating about things we don't know yet.
As for the effects of Shepards choices, well... It remains to be seen untill we have played through ME3.

@Dave of Canada: But what if the base does have indoctrination traps? The reapers realy likes them you know. A indoctrinated crew would have little chance of stopping returning reapers and collectors from start up the reaper production again. And it's not just any reaper, a human reaper is probably made for a special reason. The risks of reaper tech are well known. Things can go fubar to the extent that it severely lessen the galaxys chances to survive. The base is a reaper built factory and who knows what else. Sneaky guys those reapers.

It could possibly be something usefull know from the base. Unless Harbringer destroyed things that could be used against the reapers when leaving the base (if he realy left, sneaky reapers). But yes, wishfull thinking is all Shepard have at the moment so it may something to at least hope for.

So what do we have then?
The base being a real threat: Confirmed, it can create more human reapers as long as it's unexploded.
The base containing vital information: Unconfirmed. All we realy knew about the base is that it was used to create reapers, we don't know if the information about the actual process is still availiable to us or if it can be used to our advantage.

So, blowing it up removes a real threat and a possible advantage. Keeping it means keeping a real threat and a possible advantage. The first option seems like a slightly less desperate gamble to me.

Some may argue that after the reaper conflict there will be reaper tech all over the galaxy anyway. Probably true, but I think it is a threat we can handle at that point as there are no reapers using it to their advantage anymore.

Also, Failberus. Nuff said.

Modifié par lovgreno, 09 avril 2011 - 06:09 .

[Dave of Canada]

lovgreno wrote...

But what if the base does have indoctrination traps? The reapers realy likes them you know.

We'd have heard of something about it somewhere, though they've salvaged technology and used it without any signs of indoctrination or mention of some guy going "Did you hear what happened to the salvage teams?".

A indoctrinated crew would have little chance of stopping returning reapers and collectors from start up the reaper production again.

Collectors are (assumed) extinct and Reapers need workers for building, which they don't have. An indocrinated crew of salvagers isn't going to go far taking the place of the Collectors, especially if the indocrination device forces them to huskify themselves or make them into drooling idiots.

An indocrination device would serve little purpose to the Reapers in the Base except for a means of defense, it has no tactical or practical use.

The risks of reaper tech are well known.

As does it's benefits considering it's helped us stop them twice.

Protheans understanding the relays helped them build the Conduit which led to their downfall in ME1 and EDI (and the Thannix Cannon to a lesser extent) assisted in the destruction of the Collectors.

Things can go fubar to the extent that it severely lessen the galaxys chances to survive. The base is a reaper built factory and who knows what else. Sneaky guys those reapers.

It's also a Collector tech storage facility.

Unless Harbringer destroyed things that could be used against the reapers when leaving the base.

He couldn't have destroyed anything physical, maybe deleted data but anything laying around remains there.

The base containing vital information: Unconfirmed. All we realy knew about the base is that it was used to create reapers, we don't know if the information about the actual process is still availiable to us or if it can be used to our advantage.

Excluding anything Reaper, we gain Collector technology. Seeker swarms, particle weaponry, regenerative plating, able to create highly infectious viruses, able to track down specific individual species and whatever they were using to create super-husks and that's from what we've seen in ME2.

Including Reaper stuff? I'm fully expecting more research on indocrination, which was shown in the novel and probably more study in their weapons and shields. Thannix cannon and EDI was made from remains, what could an entire factory give?

So, blowing it up removes a real threat and a possible advantage. Keeping it means keeping a real threat and a possible advantage. The first option seems like a slightly less desperate gamble to me.

If you need the base to defeat the Reapers and you've kept it, thank god.
If you didn't need the base to defeat the Reapers and you've kept it, well... that's unfortunate, though like you've mentioned below... everybody will have Reaper tech anyway.
If you need the base to defeat the Reapers and you destroyed it, all galactic life is destroyed.
If you didn't need the base to defeat the Reapers and you destroyed it, good job!

Some may argue that after the reaper conflict there will be reaper tech all over the galaxy anyway. Probably true, but I think it is a threat we can handle at that point as there are no reapers using it to their advantage anymore.

Never thought about it, I'll use this to counter the people who say they refuse to give Cerberus the Base because they don't want to give Reaper tech to Cerberus after the war. Thanks!

Also, Failberus. Nuff said.

They fail as much as the Alliance / Council, it's all for extra sidequests.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 avril 2011 - 07:30 .

[Soahfreako]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Soahfreako wrote...

You also won't be helping defeat the Reapers, since, you know, you'll be indoctrinated if you even tried to study their tech.

Minus, of course, all the times it doesn't happen.

Not all Reaper technology indoctrinates. Technology is mechanical systems, not magic.

Except that all the tech that people have come into contact with has indoctrinated them. I.E. Paul Grayson, Amanda Kenson, and the Turians in comics. Of course it doesn't happen right away, it's subtle and takes a few weeks to start taking effect.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Dave of Canada wrote...

If you need the base to defeat the Reapers and you've kept it, thank god.
If you didn't need the base to defeat the Reapers and you've kept it, well... that's unfortunate, though life continues on.
If you need the base to defeat the Reapers and you destroyed it, all galactic life is destroyed.
If you didn't need the base to defeat the Reapers and you destroyed it, good job!

II've been over this before in this thread, but you are neglecting some very serious questions here:

What if the Collector tech is all stuff the Reapers have specific countermeasures for? In that case, every credit that goes into collector tech is a credit lost. Every man-hour that goes into researching it is a man-hour thrown away.

What if the collector base has some specific good tech in it, but it's not as good or useful as the tech on Ilos? If we spend billions of credits on the CB and send scientists there instead of to more valuable projects (like studying the citadel, or the Mass Relays, or Ilos) it could be a waste of valuable resources.

If I were the Reapers, I'd put indoctrination devices in everything but the relays and the citadel. Why wouldn't I? Have it set to activate the second I release direct control. Simple. I'd also give my moronic slave race substandard tech, so that if they ever get their dumb-asses captured, it wouldn't hurt me. Of course, as I've said before, I could be smarter than machine geniuses. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible.

Also, most of the best recent research on Reaper technology has been research on the pieces of a thing we blew up. Why can't we just do that again?

So basically - if you keep the base and it indoctrinates your five best scientists, the ones who would have figured out other countermeasures if assigned elsewhere, you've destroyed the galaxy.
If you waste resources researching stuff on the CB when the best solutions are on the Citadel or on Ilos, you've destroyed the galaxy,
If the tech on the collector base is all stuff the Reapers have countermeasures for, and you spend your military budget on it, you've destroyed the galaxy.


I'm not saying that it's proven fact that destroying the base is better than keeping it.  I don't have any more evidence for my suppositions than you do. But there is no hard evidence either way, absolutely no data that indicates the Collector base will help more than hinder. It's a matter of opinion.

I'm fine with you coming to a different conclusion, based on the evidence, but don't act like your conclusion is fact. Mine is equally valid. There is absolutely no evidence to tip the scale either way, it's all based on different guesswork as to the Reaper's planning capabilities and motivations.

Now,  if there were an option to keep the base, but not study it until we'd already exhausted all other options on projects I think will be more useful, then I'd take that option. That isn't an option, though.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 avril 2011 - 07:47 .

[Ieldra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
In my opinion, and just in my opinion, our chances versus the Reapers don't directly relate to keeping the CB. I think we'd get better results from Ilos, or from studying that one planet where they supposedly shot a Reaper with a meteor, or from studying the Mass Relays or the Citadel themselves. I believe there are a hundred projects more worthy of funding.

I can understand how you could look at the CB and say "this is our best bet." I just don't draw the same conclusion. And we have no way of knowing who is correct. If you believe the CB offers you the best chance of winning, then keep it! I was just bringing up all the factors that I usually consider, in case you hadn't thought of one of them previously. If you've considered everything I brought up, and still conclude that the CB is the best bet, than I respect that decision. I just reached a different one, myself.

Just to add some things:
(1) Studying one thing does not prevent you from studying another. At the point where we are, I would put resources into studying *every* Reaper artifact we have found so far. Should one prove too dangerous by indoctrinating everyone in spite of heavy safety measures, park it somewhere in deep space until we know more from other sources.
(2) The derelict Reaper is destroyed, unfortunately. In fact, were it intact, the weight of facts in the end game decision might push me into destroying the base in some of my games. As it is, I do it only in my "test run", where I make all those decisions I'd never make in a regular one, like killing Shiala and all the colonists on Feros or destroying the CB.
(3) There is no Reaper technology on Ilos. Studying the conduit might help somewhat, though.
(4) The CB is not just a repository of Reaper tech, it is an enemy HQ and a Reaper factory. I couldn't imagine a better place to study Reaper-related stuff if I tried, except maybe for the Reaper home base. I think "this is our best bet" is a very reasonable conclusion. We want to know where the Reapers are vulnerable. Well, it's likely some blueprint-equivalent can be found on the CB.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, this decision is artificially restricted anyway. There is information that would weigh into the decision we haven't got, and we should have options we haven't got. For instance, EDI gets a few things from the CB even if you blow it up. What's in there? And we should be able to keep the Reaper IFF to ourselves, thus preventing TIM from accessing the base without having to destroy it. The decision combines elements that should not be combined.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 avril 2011 - 08:18 .

[Dave of Canada]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

What if the Collector tech is all stuff the Reapers have specific countermeasures for? In that case, every credit that goes into collector tech is a credit lost.

Assuming the Reapers have suddenly become immune to their own technology, we've lost nothing because their technology has more practicle applications elsewhere.

An entire colony has been indocrinated? Send in the Seeker Swarms to stun them all!
Your ship's hull has been damaged in a firefight? Don't worry, it regenerates itself!
Particle weaponry isn't effective against the Reapers? It'll sure rip apart the ships of indocrinated personnel!
(unethical) An entire colony of turians / batarians / salarians / krogan (ect) have been indocrinated? Send in the highly contagious virus!
(unethical, might not work) Have dying soldiers? Turn them into husk shock troopers!

The Reaper war isn't going to be simply against the Reapers, it'll be everybody against themselves. Might as well be prepared to deal with it as much as possible, disabling entire colonies and enemy ships can and will be effective.

What if the collector base has some specific good tech in it, but it's not as good or useful as the tech on Ilos? If we spend billions of credits on the CB and send scientists there instead of to more valuable projects (like studying the citadel, or the Mass Relays, or Ilos) it could be a waste of valuable resources.

Two things:

1. One of the novels refers to recieving technology from the Collectors as being similar to winning the lottery, you feel like you've won the jackpot. If that's the case, and the Collectors wouldn't be handing out everything single piece of technology they have to a random stranger, then anything in the Collector Base is likely extremely useful.

2. Studying the Citadel / Relays / Ilos would achieve nothing, it has no practical combat application and Cerberus would not be able to do anything with their research anyway. It's considered illegal to do anything involving research with the Citadel / Relays and if they released the information through the Alliance, the Alliance scientist claiming the credit would be arrested.

Illos would be a bigger waste because the Citadel Council have already investigated and found nothing of importance.

If I were the Reapers, I'd put indoctrination devices in everything but the relays and the citadel. Why wouldn't I?

Because it dumbs down the indocrinated person until eventually they become completely worthless and unable to take care of themselves, which is counterproductive of what you'd want if you wish to have loyal workers constantly working for years and kidnapping people. An indocrinated salvage crew would serve no purpose to the Reapers at the Collector Base, they'd be unable to continue operation of the base.

And we've heard nothing of any indocrination ever from the Base, both during and after the events of the game.

Have it set to activate the second I release direct control. Simple. I'd also give my moronic slave race substandard tech, so that if they ever get their dumb-asses captured, it wouldn't hurt me. Of course, as I've said before, I could be smarter than machine geniuses. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible.

You are, the Reapers in ME2 have been shown as incompetent when they pretty much left the biggest defense of their secret factory as being the way to get there. Aside from the Omega 4 Relay, the Occulus(Oculi?) and the Collector Ship... there was no defense for the Collector Base, once you've reached inside you had the personnel to deal with and that's it.

Also, most of the best recent research on Reaper technology has been research on the pieces of a thing we blew up. Why can't we just do that again?

So basically - if you keep the base and it indoctrinates your five best scientists, the ones who would have figured out other countermeasures if assigned elsewhere, you've destroyed the galaxy.

The Base wouldn't indocrinate scientists, they'd indocrinate salvage workers. Scientists would probably remain at Cerberus facilities preparing for the arrival of technology from the salvage workers, which is what happened in the novel. TIM himself overseered the operation dealing on indocrination itself using Collector Base technology and nobody in the base shown signs, nor was there any mention / hint of it.

If you waste resources researching stuff on the CB when the best solutions are on the Citadel or on Ilos, you've destroyed the galaxy

Ilos was a prothean facility researching on recreating the relays, there's nothing else there to research. Council have already looked.

It's illegal to research anything on the Citadel and anything worthwhile would probably not be put where somebody could accidently stumble and find the legendary technology of an ancient machine race.

If the tech on the collector base is all stuff the Reapers have countermeasures for, and you spend your military budget on it, you've destroyed the galaxy.

You'd be as prepared as not having kept the base and you gain all the stuff that I mentioned above.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 avril 2011 - 08:16 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
In my opinion, and just in my opinion, our chances versus the Reapers don't directly relate to keeping the CB. I think we'd get better results from Ilos, or from studying that one planet where they supposedly shot a Reaper with a meteor, or from studying the Mass Relays or the Citadel themselves. I believe there are a hundred projects more worthy of funding.

I can understand how you could look at the CB and say "this is our best bet." I just don't draw the same conclusion. And we have no way of knowing who is correct. If you believe the CB offers you the best chance of winning, then keep it! I was just bringing up all the factors that I usually consider, in case you hadn't thought of one of them previously. If you've considered everything I brought up, and still conclude that the CB is the best bet, than I respect that decision. I just reached a different one, myself.

Just to add some things:
(1) Studying one thing does not prevent you from studying another. At the point where we are, I would put resources into studying *every* Reaper artifact we have found so far. Should one prove too dangerous by indoctrinating everyone in spite of heavy safety measures, park it somewhere in deep space until we know more from other sources.

It doesn't prevent you, but there is limited budget and a limited number of scientists. That's what everyone keeps ignoring.

If you only have 10 billion creds to spend on research, and you spend 5 on the CB and 5 on Ilos, and the tech you need is on Ilos, but it doesn't get completed in time, because you split your resources... then you're screwed. I said explicitly that if we could keep the base and not waste any money on it until we had finished all our other projects, or if we had completely infinite numbers, manpower, and money, then it would be fine. Otherwise, we have to prioritize, and I don't want to prioritize the base. Furthermore, TIM is not known for restraint. If I blow up the base, he can't waste all his research money on it. I'd also want to research the Omega 4 relay and the Reaper IFF. If we can figure out how they made a mass relay do an IFF thingy, and we can make an ant-reaper IFF... so that the Mass Relays now refuse to let Reapers through... that would be a THING.

(3) There is no Reaper technology on Ilos. Studying the conduit might help somewhat, though.

Exactly. I feel that studying Reaper tech is not the best plan. Studying the tech that gave the Reapers their first ever setback? Now that's a plan. There's the Conduit. There's also implications that the Reapers can turn the relays on and off, and the controls for that are in the Citadel. Additionally, the hologram on Ilos suggests it can tell if you aren't indoctrinated. That's the most valuable thing I can possibly imagine. Until we know for sure what that was about, I want to focus all my research there.

(4) The CB is not just a repository of Reaper tech, it is an enemy HQ and a Reaper factory. I couldn't imagine a better place to study Reaper-related stuff if I tried, except maybe for the Reaper home base. I think "this is our best bet" is a very reasonable conclusion. We want to know where the Reapers are vulnerable. Well, it's likely some blueprint-equivalent can be found on the CB.

See, here I disagree. I see the CB as a headquarters for a degraded husk race, and a device that aids in some stage of Reaper Development. Would it have the blueprints for a full reaper? in a format we could understand? What's more, was what they were constructing analgous to the rest of the Reapers? I don't feel that we have solid info on any of that. In a lot of ways, I feel like studying the CB would be like sending an army into a maternity ward, to study the weaknesses of our enemy. Are the weaknesses of a baby reaper the same as a big reaper? I doubt it, otherwise we already know its weakness: sniper rifle.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, this decision is artificially restricted anyway. There is information that would weigh into the decision we haven't got, and we should have options we haven't got. For instance, EDI gets a few things from the CB even if you blow it up. What's in there? And we should be able to keep the Reaper IFF to ourselves, thus preventing TIM from accessing the base without having to destroy it. The decision combines elements that should not be combined.

I will agree with you on this. Mordin is my resident expert on emergency scientific Ethics. If I could have asked him whether or not to keep it, I would have. And I would have done whatever he recommended. He seems pretty confident that destroying it was the right thing to do, so I'm at peace.

But not given any decision other than "letting TIM waste all his resources on it and do whatever he wants and be as irresponsible as he wants," and "blow it up," I chose the latter. The limitations clear the mind nicely, I find. 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 avril 2011 - 08:38 .

[Ieldra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I will agree with you on this. Mordin is my resident expert on emergency scientific Ethics. If I could have asked him whether or not to keep it, I would have. And I would have done whatever he recommended. He seems pretty confident that destroying it was the right thing to do, so I'm at peace.

That's not what he says at the CB. If you take him to the final boss, he says this if you take the lower option in the first part of the exchange with TIM:

"Agreed. Collector base horrific. Vile experiments, but should use what's here. Risks galaxy to ignore opportunity."

So I am, in fact, following  Mordin's advice

Only after you destroy it he agrees to it. But I put that down to railroading, since every team member does that. At the CB the opinions are more varied.

But not given any decision other than "letting TIM waste all his resources on it and do whatever he wants and be as irresponsible as he wants," and "blow it up," I chose the latter. The limitations clear the mind nicely, I find.

I cannot agree with that. The limitations make the reality of the situation appear simpler than it is, which is usually a bad thing, but most especially if you are dealing with a threat that will annihilate you. Apart from that I think that your decision does not give enough weight to the fact that we're grasping at straws to find a means against the Reapers. I find throwing even one straw away irresponsible.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 avril 2011 - 09:03 .

[Dave of Canada]

For sake of conversation.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 09 avril 2011 - 09:08 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I will agree with you on this. Mordin is my resident expert on emergency scientific Ethics. If I could have asked him whether or not to keep it, I would have. And I would have done whatever he recommended. He seems pretty confident that destroying it was the right thing to do, so I'm at peace.

That's not what he says at the CB. There, he says this:

"Collector base horrific. Vile experiments, but should use what's here. Risks galaxy to ignore opportunity."

Only after you destroy it he agrees to it. But I put that down to railroading, since every team member does that. At the CB the opinions are more varied.

Yeah, but each squadmate can express both opinions (most of them can, anyway, I've had several people take different sides, depending on who is there at the time). I'm saying that if they'd actually assigned actual opinions to actual squamates, and kept them consistent, I'd have respected Solus's. One of my biggest complaints here is that they don't make this decision hard enough. This was honestly the easiest of all the "super major" P/R decisons I had to make.

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

But not given any decision other than "letting TIM waste all his resources on it and do whatever he wants and be as irresponsible as he wants," and "blow it up," I chose the latter. The limitations clear the mind nicely, I find.

I cannot agree with that. The limitations make the reality of the situation appear simpler than it is, which is usually a bad thing, but most especially if you are dealing with a threat that will annihilate you. Apart from that I think that your decision does not give enough weight to the fact that we're grasping at straws to find a means against the Reapers. I find throwing even one straw away irresponsible.

I don't see how throwing away one straw is irresponsible if we have more straws than we can possibly fully research in the alotted time, and if the straw in question is probably a trap (in my opinion).

It's like this. Imagine you have six wardogs. Five of them are well mannered, well-behaved, and useful. One is vicious and disobedient. It's the strongest, but it's also killed several of its trainers previously. You only have enough food to feed five of the dogs. Do you starve one of the obedient ones, while feeding the one who is dangerous? Or do you put the dangerous one down, and feed the reliable ones?

Now, there is no proof right now regarding how dangerous the base is, so in my mind, whether you consider the risk greater than the reward is an opinion, and one that there are no facts to support or deny.

And maybe I needed that vicious wardog. Maybe I'll lose, because he would have torn out the throats of eight enemies before he finally turned on us, and even then it would have been easy to stop him. I calculated the odds based on my suppositions, as you calculated them based on yours.

I just think that more things are traps. Other than out-of-character knowledge, there isn't any real evidence for or against it being one.