864 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

That's a lot of 'what if's' though. At some point you need to act. As it is though, have you sort of planned a way to stop the Reapers?

Even if the Collector tech in and of itself is not sufficient, it's still in advance to what we have right now, and the Reapers have undoubtedly planned for what we have 'right now.'

It almost seems as if at the moment the best chance of any effective military response you can orchestrate against the Reapers involves a lot of harsh language, because your guns aren't capable of breeching their shields. Although it's the best hope we have, the Thanix is unknown against Reaper shields/armour and it seems unlikely that many Thanix actually exist within fleets, being that they are only mountable on Fighters and Frigates.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Arijharn wrote...

That's a lot of 'what if's' though. At some point you need to act. As it is though, have you sort of planned a way to stop the Reapers?

Even if the Collector tech in and of itself is not sufficient, it's still in advance to what we have right now, and the Reapers have undoubtedly planned for what we have 'right now.'

It almost seems as if at the moment the best chance of any effective military response you can orchestrate against the Reapers involves a lot of harsh language, because your guns aren't capable of breeching their shields. Although it's the best hope we have, the Thanix is unknown against Reaper shields/armour and it seems unlikely that many Thanix actually exist within fleets, being that they are only mountable on Fighters and Frigates.

I did act. And my action was to destroy the thing I think is a trap. The thing that I totally rationally think is a trap. (I'm not saying that I have proof that it's a trap. I'm saying that there's no proof either way, so it's reasonable for me to have that opinion. It's also reasonable for you to think it isn't a trap. The only thing I'm trying to prove here is that both decisions are potentially valid, even from the point of view of logic.) 

I do have plans to fight them. I have SO MANY PLANS. Reverse engineer the Reaper IFF, figure out how to manipulate the mass relays, further research the technology to precision-hurl asteroids at 'em, develop anti-indoctrination tech, if the holo on Ilos was telling the truth. That thing was active less than two years ago. Do they not have Data Recovery in the future? Cure the Genophage and throw some Krogan at them. Use some Ark ships to send human escape colonies to stars distant from Mass Relays, and destroy all record of their existance and destination. See if the Geth know anything we can use. Evacuate one of the minor colonies, and trap that Mass Relay to blow if they go there.

If the Reapers aren't complete morons, they would have trapped the crap out of that base. I would have made sure the base was equipped with tech that seemed advanced, but was actually stuff I knew exactly how to deal with. If I didn't do that, then "releasing control" should self-destruct the base. Harbie barely seemed to care when he released control. If the Reapers are too stupid to trap the base, there's no way they'll be that hard to beat. I mean I'm suprised they can fly straight.

And that's the only justification for the base not being a trap anyone has offered: the Reapers are too dumb to have done that. Yet they're impossible to beat?

[Ieldra]

[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]
Yes it was. To keep the base was a given

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
[quote]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.[/quote][/quote]
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.
[/quote]

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?[/quote]
There's one flaw in your analogy: we do have a whole galaxy full of scientists. And once people believe the Reaper threat, you can predict money will be thrown at that stuff like nothing else.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This was honestly the easiest of all the "super major" P/R decisons I had to make.

Yes it was. To keep the base was a given

Actually, stats released by Bioware indicate that only 36% of people keep the base. Ideally in my mind, these decisions would be designed to keep them as close to 50-50 as possible. That's why I'd rewrite it, unless they intended it this way.

I'm saying that, for me, destroying it was obvious. And a large majority of players made the same decision, at least ultimately. I'm not saying that makes it the right decision, nobody knows.

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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?

There's one flaw in your analogy: we do have a whole galaxy full of scientists. And once people believe the Reaper threat, you can predict money will be thrown at that stuff like nothing else.

By the time people believe in the Reaper threat, it's already too late. And are you saying that there are truly an infinite number of scientists in the universe? And that they are all as brilliant as, say, Mordin? Are you saying that there are enough resources and enough time to study everything to the absolute full extent that it can be studied? With nothing being neglected or ignored, or given insufficient funding? 

I don't believe enough time or money exists to study everything fully. I don't want any top scientists within a hundred miles of the collector base, either, lest we lose their genius to the Reapers, not noticing it until it is too late. I believe that, once the Reapers arrive, the best time for research is over. The most important period of time is the time between the SM and the Reapers first appearance. After that, we cannot count on anything further. I hope that more comes out then, but we can't count on it.

Of course, in a universe of infinite scientists, infinite money, and infinite resources, why can't we just build infinite fleets? 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 avril 2011 - 10:26 .

[Ieldra]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

This was honestly the easiest of all the "super major" P/R decisons I had to make.

Yes it was. To keep the base was a given

Actually, stats released by Bioware indicate that only 36% of people keep the base. Ideally in my mind, these decisions would be designed to keep them as close to 50-50 as possible. That's why I'd rewrite it, unless they intended it this way.

I'm saying that, for me, destroying it was obvious. And a large majority of players made the same decision, at least ultimately. I'm not saying that makes it the right decision, nobody knows.

I said it was obvious for me, the easiest of all the P/R decision, to keep the base, just as you said for the opposite. I really don't care if 50%, 70% or 90% of players think differently. As for the results, 64/36 is actually very close to 50/50, given they couldn't conduct a study about people's responses beforehand. In fact, since I expect most players to go with what they feel and not think overmuch on the decision, I am surprised that the figure for keeping the base isn't lower. Either I have underestimated the player base (which would be nice) or the decision for keeping the base has more weight than you'd want to admit.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
By the time people believe in the Reaper threat, it's already too late. And are you saying that there are truly an infinite number of scientists in the universe? And that they are all as brilliant as, say, Mordin? Are you saying that there are enough resources and enough time to study everything to the absolute full extent that it can be studied? With nothing being neglected or ignored, or given insufficient funding? 

I don't believe enough time or money exists to study everything fully. I don't want any top scientists within a hundred miles of the collector base, either, lest we lose their genius to the Reapers, not noticing it until it is too late. I believe that, once the Reapers arrive, the best time for research is over. The most important period of time is the time between the SM and the Reapers first appearance. After that, we cannot count on anything further. I hope that more comes out then, but we can't count on it.

We do not have infinite artifacts, so we do not need infinite scientists and infinite money. The argument "we don't have enough resources to study all that stuff" is complete speculation. As easily as you can say "we do not have enough", I could assert "we do have enough" and you wouldn't be able to gainsay me. That's not an argument, that's an excuse.
That we might not have enough time, ok, that I can see becoming a problem.  But that's no argument for destroying the base. In fact, the more artifacts we have, the more chances we have to discover something significant in the time we have left. So that would be an argument for keeping the base.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 avril 2011 - 11:02 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ieldra2 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
By the time people believe in the Reaper threat, it's already too late. And are you saying that there are truly an infinite number of scientists in the universe? And that they are all as brilliant as, say, Mordin? Are you saying that there are enough resources and enough time to study everything to the absolute full extent that it can be studied? With nothing being neglected or ignored, or given insufficient funding? 

I don't believe enough time or money exists to study everything fully. I don't want any top scientists within a hundred miles of the collector base, either, lest we lose their genius to the Reapers, not noticing it until it is too late. I believe that, once the Reapers arrive, the best time for research is over. The most important period of time is the time between the SM and the Reapers first appearance. After that, we cannot count on anything further. I hope that more comes out then, but we can't count on it.

We do not have infinite artifacts, so we do not need infinite scientists and infinite money. The argument "we don't have enough resources to study all that stuff" is complete speculation. As easily as you can say "we do not have enough", I could assert "we do have enough" and you wouldn't be able to gainsay me. That's not an argument, that's an excuse.
That we might not have enough time, ok, that I can see becoming a problem.  But that's no argument for destroying the base. In fact, the more artifacts we have, the more chances we have to discover something significant in the time we have left. So that would be an argument for keeping the base.

The only thing I am fairly certain of is this: if we do not blow up the base, TIM will spend a lot of time and money researching it. This means I can't accept any argument that says we will "hold it in reserve in case we need it." I do not think doing such a thing is possible, in the context of the game. Do you disagree? Do you think there is a substantial chance that TIM will not study the base immediately, given his stated intentions to do exactly that?

For me, the argument for destroying the base is that studying it will backfire. And backfire HARD. I think it is a Trap. There is no hard evidence either way.

You are claiming there are enough scientists and enough resources to study everything - I am saying there is no proof of this. 

I am not saying blowing the base is the correct decision. I am saying there is abolutely no proof either way, and that both conclusions are equally valid.

Other than the fact that I think TIM will try to study the base, every single other thing anyone has brought up is pretty much just base supposition. If you can provide conclusive proof that studying the base will not backfire in any way, and that we will definitely have enough resources for everything, then you can say one side is better than the other. Without that, I don't see how either opinion seems like anything other than an opinion, neither one more heavily supported by objective fact.

If I didn't know for sure that TIM would study the base right away, if I could keep it locked away "just in case of emergency" then I would. However, I firmly believe that this is not an option offered by the game. Should it be? Probably. But it isn't.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 avril 2011 - 11:40 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Mesina2 wrote...

After you kill Illusive Man you take over Cerberus and any tech from Collector base.

Not a bad idea anymore.

The screen will fade... The narrator (Varric disguised as a volus) says: "Now let me tell you what really happened..."" and it turns out you work for TIM anyway.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Much of this was answered but there are a few I wish to jump on...

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. Every man-hour that goes into researching it is a man-hour thrown away.

Presuming this is accurate, they would only possess countermeasures to technology they are acutely aware of. It is common strategy to modify the functionality even in the slightest manner. A primary example toward the benefits of Reaper tech is the Thanix Cannon, which coincidently had we not taken the risk, would have cost us one of our squadmates.

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

In addition, to the preceding response. It is also quite apparent the Reapers are arrogant, hence the Collector Base having virtually no defense. They cannot fathom the necessity because who could possibly prevent their cycle of destruction? You could theorize the idiocy of this mindset however when they have been successful for thousands upon thousands of millennia. It is hardly implausible they conclude their plan is soundproof.

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?

There was only so much that could be done with scrap metal. Anderson clearly indicates the majority of Sovereign's body was either annihilated or stolen via salvage teams. If you chip at a small rock long enough, it will inevitably become a pebble.

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.

Holy overreaction batman! Okay, if you destroy the base and later discover it was the only means to prevent the Reaper cycle, you've destroyed the galaxy!

See? I can do that to. If the galaxy only has five noteworthy scientists, then the Reapers may as well catch a movie because we will screw ourselves over long before they need to.

Between the trillions of organics, separated by a plethora of different species. We would have thousands of amply intelligent minds to choose from. Of course, this is presuming we would send even a single one prior to a salvage team and we not measure from afar their mental stability. If they exhibit signs of indoctrination, we then can bombard the base or active those detonation triggers I would have had installed.

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.
[

Mass Effect 2 had already clarified there was nothing to research on the Citadel or Ilos, the latter of which was mere ruins of a Prothen civilization. Beyond that I would be repeating myself.

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.

There is evidence to tip the scale, the primary factor being there is nothing preventing destroying the base at a later juncture should it prove problematic, via through nefarious Cerberus intentions or simply by nature of its existence. What is presented in the reality we have nothing to combat the Reapers. There is no technology, no research, nothing, and therefore this becomes our singe opportunity to potentially remedy a significant conundrum; why do they initiate this cycle of destruction and can it be prevented?

Another curious tidbit smudboy commented on is the possibility the base served an additional purpose, and this was to support the otherwise unstable galactic core. Granted, I concede that is complete speculation however the hypothesis is not without merit. Shepard, having not bothered to do any research prior to winging it, has no reliable source to refute this. Therefore, destroying could have ignited a whole new slew of problems.

But... by virtue of the plot, everything just works out.

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.

We already have, hence why nothing was done before. This is where yet another reason materializes for keeping the base. Evidence. The Council has been insistent there the Reapers are a myth Shepard is perpetuating for whatever reason. Well, here is something to shove down their throats. Why Shepard aligned himself/herlsef with Cerberus, unknown technology, Reaper's existence, disappearance of millions of colonists; all the answers to those questions come from that base.

Why I am so heavily against keeping the base is it adheres to blind idealism and optimism. "We may find another route" or "There must be another way!" I understand the distrust of TIM but when the fate of the galaxy is at risk. That mindset is, well, blind. Unless TIM is indoctrinated - and do not get me started on that plot angle - even at his worst, our goals will intertwine. The reapers must be destroyed.

[Ieldra]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Why I am so heavily against destroyingkeeping the base is it adheres to blind idealism and optimism. "We may find another route" or "There must be another way!" I understand the distrust of TIM but when the fate of the galaxy is at risk. That mindset is, well, blind. Unless TIM is indoctrinated - and do not get me started on that plot angle - even at his worst, our goals will intertwine. The reapers must be destroyed.

Given the context, I believe this was what you wanted to say...

And I agree. Destroying the base is sticking your head in the sand and saying "there is another way" because, well, it just can't be that we must give that base to Cerberus. If we had a single other angle to hold our own against the Reapers, I'd still see no merit in destroying the base, but I would find it, maybe, excusable. As things stand, we have nothing. So, if there is something that might give us a chance to catch up - it may be a small one, yes - then we have to take it. 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Why I am so heavily against destroyingkeeping the base is it adheres to blind idealism and optimism. "We may find another route" or "There must be another way!" I understand the distrust of TIM but when the fate of the galaxy is at risk. That mindset is, well, blind. Unless TIM is indoctrinated - and do not get me started on that plot angle - even at his worst, our goals will intertwine. The reapers must be destroyed.

Given the context, I believe this was what you wanted to say...

And I agree. Destroying the base is sticking your head in the sand and saying "there is another way" because, well, it just can't be that we must give that base to Cerberus. If we had a single other angle to hold our own against the Reapers, I'd still see no merit in destroying the base, but I would find it, maybe, excusable. As things stand, we have nothing. So, if there is something that might give us a chance to catch up - it may be a small one, yes - then we have to take it. 

Haha, whoops. Yes, that was what I meant. I suppose typing something at 7am while watching television was a poor idea. Thanks. ^^

Anyhow, I agree. If there was something that made the base an alternative, a nice to have but ultimately unnecessary benefit, I could partially accept the choice. There would still be an argument against destroying, there is at least something. As it stands this is our only opportunity to study the Reapers. To disregard those potential advantages because of what it is was used for previously is making a decision based on emotions and not logic.

[Saaziel]

Arijharn wrote...

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.

Its not something i concern myself with.

As I've said before : Even if i'd prefer dying with principles over living without them, it still doesn't resolve the Collector base issue. The descision to either keep or destroy the base could still be a matter of principles. In other words, i find just as many good* reason to do either. That's why i never liked the idea of tying P/R to game changing descisions.

For example , doing Mordins loyalty mission leads to the problem of either keeping or destroying the Genophage cure. The Paragon answer is to keep it , because those who perished during the tests would have died for nothing if destroyed. The Renegade answer is to destroy it, because it is tainted. I can see the same kind of arguments applicable to the collector base.

P/R should either be strickly confined to the RPG element of the game: Having "X" points in Renegade points would unlock chat options with Jack or Grunt for example. Having done "Y" Paragon interrupt would unlock a chat option with Jacob or Samara. Or alternatively , each  P/R choice should be 4 options , 2 Paragon : to keep or destroy and 2 Renegade : to keep or destroy.

This is keeping in mind that neither choice is inherently dis/advantageous. 

* By "good" i mean rational/advantageous , not the "morally correct" type of good.

Modifié par Saaziel, 09 avril 2011 - 04:43 .

[Labrev]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Why I am so heavily against destroyingkeeping the base is it adheres to blind idealism and optimism. "We may find another route" or "There must be another way!" I understand the distrust of TIM but when the fate of the galaxy is at risk. That mindset is, well, blind. Unless TIM is indoctrinated - and do not get me started on that plot angle - even at his worst, our goals will intertwine. The reapers must be destroyed.

Given the context, I believe this was what you wanted to say...

And I agree. Destroying the base is sticking your head in the sand and saying "there is another way" because, well, it just can't be that we must give that base to Cerberus. If we had a single other angle to hold our own against the Reapers, I'd still see no merit in destroying the base, but I would find it, maybe, excusable. As things stand, we have nothing. So, if there is something that might give us a chance to catch up - it may be a small one, yes - then we have to take it. 

We don't have "nothing." We've already fought a Reaper, Sovereign, and won. We used our own weapons. We took away their surprise-attack approach of arriving through the Citadel, which was pivitol in their attack that wiped out the Protheans. Now when they arrive, we'll have leadership. What we need to fight the Reapers is unity. That's how Sovereign was stopped, and that was just the Citadel and Alliance fleets. There will be more Reapers, we need more manpower.

Besides, having the base doesn't ensure anything positive. It could be a pile of useless garbage for all we know. Or we'll shoot ourselves in the foot trying to handle it.

If we truly were desperate then I'd agree with keeping it ('calls for desperate actions), but even Renegade Shepard says that the base won't win the war.

[Elite Midget]

It was the Renegade Option ergo it was a bad idea that will screw you over in ME3 since you should have picked the Paragon option.

[Last Vizard]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Keeping the Base is a GOOD idea, always has been and always will.

Form the story angle at the moment of the decision it is the only sount decision to keep the Base.

Everything else is meta gaming.

Besides, Cerberus hunting you still doesn't mean they become the bad guys. Maybe you're the bad guy. Shepard is Saren v2.0, remember?

Glad to see logic being used, doesn't matter if the choice is para or rene... the point is what is most logical, Reapers are all ready ahead (even though they aren't as tough as most players fear, judging from how easy Nazzara went down considering everything, plus we now have Thanax cannons).

Keep base = new tech = beat Reapers without much of a fight
Keep base = Reapers get base BACK that they lost however instead of Collecter ships defending it they only have indocos and some normal ships proctecting it... = Reapers slighty worse off considering Shep is alive still (collectors dead too).

Destroy base = no tech = many in the galaxy die fighting a conventional war but Thanax cannon plus retcon story saves the day.
Destroy base = no tech = Thanix cannon doesn't work like it should (slow moving molten metal that passes through mass effect fields due to low speed and melts through armor) = few in the Galaxcy die due to retcon story

ME 1 = great story
ME 2 = plot holes
ME 3 = RETCON story

[Last Vizard]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Why I am so heavily against destroyingkeeping the base is it adheres to blind idealism and optimism. "We may find another route" or "There must be another way!" I understand the distrust of TIM but when the fate of the galaxy is at risk. That mindset is, well, blind. Unless TIM is indoctrinated - and do not get me started on that plot angle - even at his worst, our goals will intertwine. The reapers must be destroyed.

Given the context, I believe this was what you wanted to say...

And I agree. Destroying the base is sticking your head in the sand and saying "there is another way" because, well, it just can't be that we must give that base to Cerberus. If we had a single other angle to hold our own against the Reapers, I'd still see no merit in destroying the base, but I would find it, maybe, excusable. As things stand, we have nothing. So, if there is something that might give us a chance to catch up - it may be a small one, yes - then we have to take it. 

We don't have "nothing." We've already fought a Reaper, Sovereign, and won. We used our own weapons. We took away their surprise-attack approach of arriving through the Citadel, which was pivitol in their attack that wiped out the Protheans. Now when they arrive, we'll have leadership. What we need to fight the Reapers is unity. That's how Sovereign was stopped, and that was just the Citadel and Alliance fleets. There will be more Reapers, we need more manpower.

Besides, having the base doesn't ensure anything positive. It could be a pile of useless garbage for all we know. Or we'll shoot ourselves in the foot trying to handle it.

If we truly were desperate then I'd agree with keeping it ('calls for desperate actions), but even Renegade Shepard says that the base won't win the war.

The Reapers are in trouble yes, but Thanax cannon and happy people won't be enough on its own to stop 400 Reapers (didn't look like a great deal of Reaper ships at the end of ME 2).... we lose little if the base is kept and there is either nothing of use or it turns against us (no Collector ships to protect it this time and i hardly think the council of useless leaders will walk the station just so they can get indoctrinated), but we would gain a great deal if it provides ANY tech because it advances further than the Reapers wanted (Thanax cannon is one such thing).

[Bourne Endeavor]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Why I am so heavily against destroyingkeeping the base is it adheres to blind idealism and optimism. "We may find another route" or "There must be another way!" I understand the distrust of TIM but when the fate of the galaxy is at risk. That mindset is, well, blind. Unless TIM is indoctrinated - and do not get me started on that plot angle - even at his worst, our goals will intertwine. The reapers must be destroyed.

Given the context, I believe this was what you wanted to say...

And I agree. Destroying the base is sticking your head in the sand and saying "there is another way" because, well, it just can't be that we must give that base to Cerberus. If we had a single other angle to hold our own against the Reapers, I'd still see no merit in destroying the base, but I would find it, maybe, excusable. As things stand, we have nothing. So, if there is something that might give us a chance to catch up - it may be a small one, yes - then we have to take it. 

We don't have "nothing." We've already fought a Reaper, Sovereign, and won. We used our own weapons. We took away their surprise-attack approach of arriving through the Citadel, which was pivitol in their attack that wiped out the Protheans. Now when they arrive, we'll have leadership. What we need to fight the Reapers is unity. That's how Sovereign was stopped, and that was just the Citadel and Alliance fleets. There will be more Reapers, we need more manpower.

Besides, having the base doesn't ensure anything positive. It could be a pile of useless garbage for all we know. Or we'll shoot ourselves in the foot trying to handle it.

If we truly were desperate then I'd agree with keeping it ('calls for desperate actions), but even Renegade Shepard says that the base won't win the war.

Sovereign by his lonesome practically decimated the entire Citadel armada, and would have been successful if not for Shepard bugging around the controls from within. The reality is had the derelict Reaper awoken for a little tag team action, the galaxy was doomed. We now are faced with an opposition well exceeding a hundred times what came before. You could have Alexander the Great led the campaign and all it would net is a plethora of wrecked ships. Unity did not stop Sovereign, preventing Saren from hacking the Citadel did.

You have also disregarded that no one believes Shepard and by destroying the base, you have no evidence to dissuade this opinion. They would only rally when the Reapers have arrived, and it is highly probable the Reapers would not solely target Earth. By the time the races could ready sizable fleets, half could well be annihilated.

Correct, it could be useless garbage. It could also be the secret to understanding and/or preventing the cycle of destruction, which has plagued the galaxy for millions of years. What if they left other behind? This is why we research things. Think about modern day science. How many failures has humanity witnessed to reach the technical marvels we have today?

What we discovered from the little remains of Sovereign brought the Thanix Cannon. What if the Collector Base led to entire ships? Throwing it all away is not thinking with logic but emotion.

We are desperate, we have nothing. Brute force and catch phrases will amount to nothing. Shepard claiming the base will not win the war, is his/her rightfully concluded it will not be the magic deus en machina. That does not insinuate it is useless.

At the end of the day, my assumption of ME2 looks to have become accurate. It was a fun expansion game to stall time because BioWare overestimated the length of their story. That or they wanted to make more money. I do not mind either way, however it looks to be the reality.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 09 avril 2011 - 05:01 .

[aimlessgun]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
You have also disregarded that no one believes Shepard and by destroying the base, you have no evidence to dissuade this opinion. They would only rally when the Reapers have arrived, and it is highly probable the Reapers would not solely target Earth. By the time the races could ready sizable fleets, half could well be annihilated.

The evidence angle is often overlooked in the base discussion, and I'm not sure why so many people trivialize it. The first thing I did after keeping the base is fly to the Citadel and go to Anderson. And then of course I raged because the game railroaded me into being TIM's stooge. But that's neither here nor there.

In-universe, without knowing Bioware was going to screw you over, the base would present more evidence towards proving the Reaper threat to the galaxy, which frankly is MORE important than whatever tech you can salvage, because it means resources devoted to preparing for the Reapers. It cannot be overstated: the Galaxy is BIG. Cerberus is a microbe compared to resources of the galaxy. Any evidence at all, you have to sieze on like the drowning man you are.

Dave of Canada wrote...

For sake of conversation.

Hehe thanks for the laugh. In the early days those weakass decision-point paragon arguments from the squaddies dominated the forum debates, but the paragons have become much more robust since.

And the post-mission dialogue makes me angry all over again, since it just drives home how Bioware tied you up and roped you to being TIM's lapdog simply by choosing to keep a base.

Modifié par aimlessgun, 09 avril 2011 - 05:25 .

[Sparrow44]

I have a few Shepards that saved the Collector Base, my reasoning for keeping it was that even though it's risky to have possible Reaper tech lying around in Cerberus hands no less, it is likely that whatever is salvaged from the base is going to be of use to Shepard.

As for Cerberus well they'll likely press the wrong button and we're forced to stop a Cerberus experiment from getting out of control (same situation as Project Overlord) it's what Shepard has done for most of the series i.e saving their butt, however there has to be a long-term reward in the end.

Is it ethical? No.
Is it morally wrong? Possibly.
Could it help defeat the Reapers? Always worth a shot.
Any way it will backfire? This is Mass Effect, things tend to backfire when Shep's involved.

[Saaziel]

aimlessgun wrote...

In-universe, without knowing Bioware was going to screw you over, the base would present more evidence towards proving the Reaper threat to the galaxy, which frankly is MORE important than whatever tech you can salvage, because it means resources devoted to preparing for the Reapers. It cannot be overstated: the Galaxy is BIG. Cerberus is a microbe compared to resources of the galaxy. Any evidence at all, you have to sieze on like the drowning man you are.

I'm not sure the base would provide any evidence pointing at a defenitive Reaper presence. Not that it wouldn't be a valiant effort to keep it for such reasons.

The tech is prothean in making. Even if its not, most still attribute begone technologies to the protheans. On the surface, most of the reaper presence is limited to "assuming control" of the Collector general or drone. I'd doubt any evidence found on the collector base could convince the same people who dismissed Nazara as a Geth construct (Not just the council).

The best evidence was the derelict Reaper. That situation wasn't handled properly in my opinion.

Modifié par Saaziel, 09 avril 2011 - 05:33 .

[aimlessgun]

Saaziel wrote...
I'm not sure the base would provide any evidence pointing at a defenitive Reaper presence. Not that it wouldn't be a valiant effort to keep it for such reasons.

The tech is prothean in making. Even if its not, most still attribute begone technologies to the protheans. On the surface, most of the reaper presence is limited to "assuming control" of the Collector general or drone. I'd doubt any evidence found on the collector base could convince the same people who dismissed Nazara as a Geth construct (Not just the council).

The best evidence was the derelict Reaper. That situation wasn't handled properly in my opinion.

It was building a Reaper, but yes it is only a chance at evidence. Better than nothing.

The Derelict reaper...do you mean in the sense that "hey, we literally killed every single enemy in here. Why do we have to blow the core? Can't we just take our time and hack a way out?"

Modifié par aimlessgun, 09 avril 2011 - 05:44 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Saaziel wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

In-universe, without knowing Bioware was going to screw you over, the base would present more evidence towards proving the Reaper threat to the galaxy, which frankly is MORE important than whatever tech you can salvage, because it means resources devoted to preparing for the Reapers. It cannot be overstated: the Galaxy is BIG. Cerberus is a microbe compared to resources of the galaxy. Any evidence at all, you have to sieze on like the drowning man you are.

I'm not sure the base would provide any evidence pointing at a defenitive Reaper presence. Not that it wouldn't be a valiant effort to keep it for such reasons.

The tech is prothean in making. Even if its not, most still attribute begone technologies to the protheans. On the surface, most of the reaper presence is limited to "assuming control" of the Collector general or drone. I'd doubt any evidence found on the collector base could convince the same people who dismissed Nazara as a Geth construct (Not just the council).

The best evidence was the derelict Reaper. That situation wasn't handled properly in my opinion.

I tend to agree however it would be akin to suit recordings from Virmire. Not liable to prove to the Council irrefutably of the existence of the Reapers but enough to bolster his/her case and no come across as some bumbling lunatic. All we need is something to compel the Asari Council to meld with Shepard or Liara. That might tip the scale favorably.

That said, I definitely agree the derelict Reaper was handled awful for a variety of reasons. Its entire introduction was perplexing and reeked of the "this would be so cool!" syndrome in lieu of an intriguing plot progression point.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 09 avril 2011 - 05:45 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

aimlessgun wrote...

Saaziel wrote...
I'm not sure the base would provide any evidence pointing at a defenitive Reaper presence. Not that it wouldn't be a valiant effort to keep it for such reasons.

The tech is prothean in making. Even if its not, most still attribute begone technologies to the protheans. On the surface, most of the reaper presence is limited to "assuming control" of the Collector general or drone. I'd doubt any evidence found on the collector base could convince the same people who dismissed Nazara as a Geth construct (Not just the council).

The best evidence was the derelict Reaper. That situation wasn't handled properly in my opinion.

It was building a Reaper, but yes it is only a chance at evidence. Better than nothing.

The Derelict reaper...do you mean in the sense that "hey, we literally killed every single enemy in here. Why do we have to blow the core? Can't we just take our time and hack a way out?"

I believe he/she meant Shepard not shoving it down the Turian Councilor's throat. "There's your damn Reaper, jackass." All we had to do was show them it before we boarded. Shepard does have a punishing lack of urgency, what with all those daddy issues to solve beforehand. Plenty of time for the Council to see it.

[Darth Death]

RainyDayLover wrote...

Ugh. TIM hunting down Shepard makes no sense whatsoever, especially after knowing what s/he's capable of. Besides, why do that when the Reapers are invading? And to the only person who's trying to stop the Reapers?

TIM must be overconfident, indoctrinated, or just plain outright stupid. 

[aimlessgun]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

Saaziel wrote...
I'm not sure the base would provide any evidence pointing at a defenitive Reaper presence. Not that it wouldn't be a valiant effort to keep it for such reasons.

The tech is prothean in making. Even if its not, most still attribute begone technologies to the protheans. On the surface, most of the reaper presence is limited to "assuming control" of the Collector general or drone. I'd doubt any evidence found on the collector base could convince the same people who dismissed Nazara as a Geth construct (Not just the council).

The best evidence was the derelict Reaper. That situation wasn't handled properly in my opinion.

It was building a Reaper, but yes it is only a chance at evidence. Better than nothing.

The Derelict reaper...do you mean in the sense that "hey, we literally killed every single enemy in here. Why do we have to blow the core? Can't we just take our time and hack a way out?"

I believe he/she meant Shepard not shoving it down the Turian Councilor's throat. "There's your damn Reaper, jackass." All we had to do was show them it before we boarded. Shepard does have a punishing lack of urgency, what with all those daddy issues to solve beforehand. Plenty of time for the Council to see it.

You risk maybe losing the IFF to outside interference, but frankly the Collectors were such a pathetic enemy compared to the Reapers that I wouldn't care

[NoUserNameHere]

Darth Death wrote...

RainyDayLover wrote...

Ugh. TIM hunting down Shepard makes no sense whatsoever, especially after knowing what s/he's capable of. Besides, why do that when the Reapers are invading? And to the only person who's trying to stop the Reapers?

TIM must be overconfident, indoctrinated, or just plain outright stupid. 

As I've said several times, we don't know what happens between games on the Cerberus front.