864 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

Drake_Hound wrote...

His opnion and isn´t flawed but proven by Bioware , and even martin sheen the voice actor .
Isn´t loved by the minority , then its the minority job to learn to deal with it .
Honestly we see 2 extreme side , just one extreme side has WON , the other just have to deal wit it .

Do you not understand the difference between 'proof' and 'opinion?' Just because Martin Sheen said that he doesn't trust TIM doesn't mean TIM is an 'evil' person. Hell, I don't trust the Illusive Man fully either, but I don't think he's either good or evil... I think he's actually rather human to be honest, he makes mistakes, he has successes.

Evil would be like Cerberus experimenting on those children for nothing more than giggles. Just because they could. For better or for worse, Cerberus operates at a (misguided in some parts) altrusitic principle; arguing that sometimes 'sacrifices has to be paid to benefit the majority.'

Cerberus out to kill Shephard doesn't make Cerberus 'evil,' although of course it's a right rotten thing to do (and we probably only have this bias because we are Commander Shephard). In this case, Cerberus is hardly more or less 'evil' than the Mercenary companies who were out for our blood in ME2.

Evil is a word that people use to describe their enemies nowadays, I think the true weight of this word and what it's suppose to represent has been diminished by proxy.

[GodWood]

Blowing up the base because you believe 'it'll back fire' and believing that you can win without it are still interconnected.

As someone who saves the base I'm fully aware there's risks with keeping it, however I also believe there's far more to gain from keeping it (even if it does backfire) than simply blowing it up.
By keeping the base, even if it does have a 50% chance of backfiring (as you claim) you still gain more from keeping it (knowledge, technology, whatever) than you would from blowing it up immediately, and, even it does backfire there's nothing saying you can't simply blow it up afterwards.

Blowing it up immediately gains you nothing. The blow upper may believe that the risks were 'too big' and may use that as their reasoning but irregardless of their excuses by blowing it up one would have to believe that they can defeat the undefeated without it.

And thus they are still more arrogant.

Modifié par GodWood, 12 avril 2011 - 02:41 .

[Arijharn]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I've seen more of the people who actually made that choice cite paranoia as to why, though. Just as I've seen more people who kept the base express strong confidence that it will help more than it hurts... just as you did in that post. That post directly implies that it will help more than it hurts, which is a common assumption from one particular side - an assumption for which we have no evidence. We have a similar amount of evidence that it is a trap. Thus I'd say that assuming the best when it comes to alien tech is hubris, while assuming the worst is paranoia.

Assumption means to make a decision to which you have no proof, but i know many people who make the decision to save the base as being wholly predicated by the fact that it took inordinate amount of firepower and sheer dumb luck to destroy Sovereign in the first place. In the (potential) words of Hackett: "It took multiple fleets -- and the destiny Ascension -- to bring down [Sovereign]." This is, by my understanding, if not outright 'proof' but strong circumstancial evidence to suggest that current military technology is not up to specifications. Remedies are needed.

As such, it's logical to 'assume' that as we don't know that any appreciable advances in weapons technology has been made, with the exception of the Thanix (which can only be mounted on Fighters and Frigates) , which itself is unproven against Reaper defenses, then some drastic measures must be taken to meet the threat against the Reapers to which we know will arrive and that all other concerns should be relegated to a lower priority, especially if antagonizing them may lead to conflict and loss of assets (specifically Cerberus; the Batarian's etc, etc).

The Collector's do have technology above our current standard (to which the Reapers have undoubtedly planned for), and considering the factors involved with getting us to the Collector Base, it marks it as being exceptionally unlikely (as in; unlikely to the point I'm willing to bet against the odds) that somehow the Reapers 'planned for' us capturing the technology. Even if they did though (i.e., your theory proves correct); we were already going to be snuffed out like a flame from a matchstick in any case, which makes the situation all the more desperate because we know current technology is not enough. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

If I'm firing at you while you're behind cover, and I'm doing everything I can to flush you out but I'm unable, but I find an RPG lying around (to which you craftily hid in the first place, expecting me to use it), then my position is actually no better than before (but perhaps worse, if you hid a grenade down the barrel), if your cover is rated 'protected' from both my normal gun and your RPG anyway. Presumably though; anyone who finds a weapon just 'lying around' is going to have the presence of mind to check the weapon before using it anyway as well (so I'll find and remove the grenade if all goes well). Not taking the RPG keeps my position as untenable as before, but taking the RPG as well improves my position (if only in the mind).

[Drake_Hound]

Arijharn wrote...

Drake_Hound wrote...

His opnion and isn´t flawed but proven by Bioware , and even martin sheen the voice actor .
Isn´t loved by the minority , then its the minority job to learn to deal with it .
Honestly we see 2 extreme side , just one extreme side has WON , the other just have to deal wit it .

Do you not understand the difference between 'proof' and 'opinion?' Just because Martin Sheen said that he doesn't trust TIM doesn't mean TIM is an 'evil' person. Hell, I don't trust the Illusive Man fully either, but I don't think he's either good or evil... I think he's actually rather human to be honest, he makes mistakes, he has successes.

Evil would be like Cerberus experimenting on those children for nothing more than giggles. Just because they could. For better or for worse, Cerberus operates at a (misguided in some parts) altrusitic principle; arguing that sometimes 'sacrifices has to be paid to benefit the majority.'

Cerberus out to kill Shephard doesn't make Cerberus 'evil,' although of course it's a right rotten thing to do (and we probably only have this bias because we are Commander Shephard). In this case, Cerberus is hardly more or less 'evil' than the Mercenary companies who were out for our blood in ME2.

Evil is a word that people use to describe their enemies nowadays, I think the true weight of this word and what it's suppose to represent has been diminished by proxy.

Look do you undestand this is a story , cause you have your idea how it should unfold .
Doesn´t mean it will happen that way , if we all look at the logical side of things .
We shouldn´t win ever , story is story a movie is a movie .
We play for the fun for it , not if we are right or wrong , when you cross that line and start insulting others.
You need to take a step back , EVIL is no longer as strong as it was in 1980. we cannot call Bush EVIL .
Cause he did what he had to do , in his period , maybe in hindsight his decision were wrong .
Doesn´t make him evil , Obama while i think is even more of a joke , cause he keeps making the "wrong" decisions. but with good intentions , doesn´t make him good either .

And finally you are getting it , It doesn´t matter what is logical , we gambled or I gambled on destroying the base.
You gambled on keeping the base , who cares we are not asking people to admit it is right or wrong.
We all want to enjoy the story and how it goes on from there .
Now if you really need , then I am sorry for destroying the base , I wish they made me go back on my moral decision . and say yo sucker you should have kept the base , it brought out more emotions out in me .
Infact you WIN , cause I don´t have that WTF moment , i gladly pay for <_<
If I make sense with this post .

[DTKT]

The issue is that as Shepard, you have zero control over the actual use of the base. You save it and hand it over to Cerberus.

They could start a factory to murder kittens and baby seals and you couldnt do anything about it.

So yeah, instead of waiting for TIM inevitable betrayal, just destroy it.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

GodWood wrote...

Blowing up the base because you believe 'it'll back fire' and believing that you can win without it are still interconnected.
As someone who saves the base I'm fully aware there's risks with keeping it, however I also believe there's far more to gain from keeping it (even if it does backfire) than simply blowing it up.
By keeping the base, even if it does have a 50% chance of backfiring (as you claim) you still gain more from keeping it (knowledge, technology, whatever) than you would from blowing it up immediately, and, even it does backfire there's nothing saying you can't simply blow it up afterwards.
Blowing it up immediately gains you nothing. The blow upper may believe that the risks were 'too big' and may use that as their reasoning but irregardless of their excuses by blowing it up one would have to believe that they can defeat the undefeated without it.
And thus they are still more arrogant.

Then do you dispute the idea that letting the Rachni queen live is hubristic? I'm just curious, because I save her partially because I thought we'd need her help, and that she couldn't possibly do more harm than good, which is exactly what you're saying about the collector base.

See, you posit a situation where, even if it backfires, there's some way to fix it. There's some way to overcome whatever damage it does. I believe that is false. When I say I think the base will "backfire" I mean "allowing Cerberus to have access to it, even temporarily, will make us weaker in the war permanently, with no way to recover." This seems to be a common conceit among those who blow the base. Thus the option to "try it out and then maybe blow it up later" is risky in-and-of-itself. I think that trying it, even for an hour or a day, is too much of a risk. I think you fail to grasp the level of my paranoia here.

We can strip the labels if you like. I may have gone overboard there, I'm not trying to call you arrogant, any more than I'm calling myself arrogant for saving the Rachni queen.

But still, the belief that using the base will definitely weaken us irreparably is no more or less supported by evidence than the belief that it will strengthen us. There's no concrete evidence either way, so it's up to you to "guess" and both decisions are equally valid.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2011 - 02:51 .

[Arijharn]

DTKT wrote...

The issue is that as Shepard, you have zero control over the actual use of the base. You save it and hand it over to Cerberus.

They could start a factory to murder kittens and baby seals and you couldnt do anything about it.

So yeah, instead of waiting for TIM inevitable betrayal, just destroy it.

By all means Destroy it if it doesn't prove useful, don't destroy it prior to finding out for sure though. It's rather funny that Renegades in this case are arguing for moderation of your decisions, because at the moment, what other hope do you expect to find considering the stakes and the odds stacked against us?

Do you expect to discover another ancient weapons platform capable of stopping the Reapers in their tracks? 

The uncertainty of finding another source against the Reapers is what makes us 'renegades' say it's plain arrogant to destroy it and have the confidence of finding another method of destroying the Reapers otherwise (although obviously this will happen, because BioWare will allow it, but this is a 'metagame' decision, Shephard has nothing else to go by, which makes it an unreasonable decision) for a military officer of a mid-senior rank to make.

Okay; we get it, you don't trust Cerberus (I don't even think Zulu fully trusts Cerberus), but don't damn the galaxy to extinction on the basis that somehow you'll 'find another way.'

[Drake_Hound]

DTKT wrote...

The issue is that as Shepard, you have zero control over the actual use of the base. You save it and hand it over to Cerberus.

They could start a factory to murder kittens and baby seals and you couldnt do anything about it.

So yeah, instead of waiting for TIM inevitable betrayal, just destroy it.

No that is not what I am saying , infact I choose option , you choose the option for maybe they give me cool gadget .
I wish that your version was true , then mine boring choice  he is going to abuse it .

Cause if he played your option , I would go like WTF !! but in the end I cannot undo my choice .
I just move on and live with it  cause in my opnion I did what must be done as my Shepard .
While you as your Shepard , should grrrr STUPID TIM , I TRUSTED YOU !! i am going to rip your eyes out <_<
And hopefully get some new gadgets with it

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Arijharn wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I've seen more of the people who actually made that choice cite paranoia as to why, though. Just as I've seen more people who kept the base express strong confidence that it will help more than it hurts... just as you did in that post. That post directly implies that it will help more than it hurts, which is a common assumption from one particular side - an assumption for which we have no evidence. We have a similar amount of evidence that it is a trap. Thus I'd say that assuming the best when it comes to alien tech is hubris, while assuming the worst is paranoia.

Assumption means to make a decision to which you have no proof, but i know many people who make the decision to save the base as being wholly predicated by the fact that it took inordinate amount of firepower and sheer dumb luck to destroy Sovereign in the first place. In the (potential) words of Hackett: "It took multiple fleets -- and the destiny Ascension -- to bring down [Sovereign]." This is, by my understanding, if not outright 'proof' but strong circumstancial evidence to suggest that current military technology is not up to specifications. Remedies are needed.

As such, it's logical to 'assume' that as we don't know that any appreciable advances in weapons technology has been made, with the exception of the Thanix (which can only be mounted on Fighters and Frigates) , which itself is unproven against Reaper defenses, then some drastic measures must be taken to meet the threat against the Reapers to which we know will arrive and that all other concerns should be relegated to a lower priority, especially if antagonizing them may lead to conflict and loss of assets (specifically Cerberus; the Batarian's etc, etc).

The Collector's do have technology above our current standard (to which the Reapers have undoubtedly planned for), and considering the factors involved with getting us to the Collector Base, it marks it as being exceptionally unlikely (as in; unlikely to the point I'm willing to bet against the odds) that somehow the Reapers 'planned for' us capturing the technology. Even if they did though (i.e., your theory proves correct); we were already going to be snuffed out like a flame from a matchstick in any case, which makes the situation all the more desperate because we know current technology is not enough. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

If I'm firing at you while you're behind cover, and I'm doing everything I can to flush you out but I'm unable, but I find an RPG lying around (to which you craftily hid in the first place, expecting me to use it), then my position is actually no better than before (but perhaps worse, if you hid a grenade down the barrel), if your cover is rated 'protected' from both my normal gun and your RPG anyway. Presumably though; anyone who finds a weapon just 'lying around' is going to have the presence of mind to check the weapon before using it anyway as well (so I'll find and remove the grenade if all goes well). Not taking the RPG keeps my position as untenable as before, but taking the RPG as well improves my position (if only in the mind).

I'm saying we have evidence in both directions.

We have exactly the same amount of evidence that the collector base will provide us with technology as we have that it will indoctrinate us, or that the tech will warp our minds, or that some other horrifying thing will happen - that is to say, we have SOME, but not complete proof.

Let me use an example similar to your RPG one, but with information instead:

Say you intercept an enemy transmission - it says they're going to attack from the west at noon. So you start moving all your troops to the west, in the morning.

If the transmission is accurate, great. You'll be better prepared for the attack.
If the transmission is a trap, and the enemy attacks at dawn from the east, they will get you when you are unprepared, when you are breaking camp, and blinded. You are far, far worse off than if you had ignored the transmission in the first place.

Don't like that? Here's a weapon one. Say we're in a fight. You are presented with a choice... you can run left and grab a machine gun lying on the ground, or you can run right and grab more ammo for your pistol

The machine gun could be rigged in a number of ways. Maybe it's placed over a cleverly concealed deadfall. Maybe concealed wires under it lead to a power source, and it will give you an electrical shock the second you touch it. Maybe the bullets will look normal, but will actually be modified to do less damage, so if you charge my location while firing it without having reloaded, I'll know that I can take a few more hits in order to get into better firing position. So unless you have a way to fully inspect the gun without touching it or getting near it, better to stay away.

Let's just say I'm not eating any found cake


Collector tech has a history of being advanced. Reaper stuff has a
history of being a horrible trap. We have no reason to believe either
one is more likely. There are many many ways where studying the collector base can leave us much weaker than not studying it. We have no way to predict how likely that is to happen, rather than the tech benefitting us. I firmly believe that we simply do not have enough evidence to make a solid prediction.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2011 - 03:09 .

[DTKT]

Arijharn wrote...

DTKT wrote...

The issue is that as Shepard, you have zero control over the actual use of the base. You save it and hand it over to Cerberus.

They could start a factory to murder kittens and baby seals and you couldnt do anything about it.

So yeah, instead of waiting for TIM inevitable betrayal, just destroy it.

By all means Destroy it if it doesn't prove useful, don't destroy it prior to finding out for sure though. It's rather funny that Renegades in this case are arguing for moderation of your decisions, because at the moment, what other hope do you expect to find considering the stakes and the odds stacked against us?

Do you expect to discover another ancient weapons platform capable of stopping the Reapers in their tracks? 

The uncertainty of finding another source against the Reapers is what makes us 'renegades' say it's plain arrogant to destroy it and have the confidence of finding another method of destroying the Reapers otherwise (although obviously this will happen, because BioWare will allow it, but this is a 'metagame' decision, Shephard has nothing else to go by, which makes it an unreasonable decision) for a military officer of a mid-senior rank to make.

Okay; we get it, you don't trust Cerberus (I don't even think Zulu fully trusts Cerberus), but don't damn the galaxy to extinction on the basis that somehow you'll 'find another way.'

Consider something else. To me, Cerberus is pro-human. Not in the "we understand the alien species and we want to cohabit with them" but more akin to "we want as much power over everyone else". To my Shepard (keyword being my here) that cannot stand.

But again, that's just my own perception of Cerberus and it's past actions. With a small dose of meta-gaming to. 

[FeralEwok]

I blow it up because I like big explosions

[Arijharn]

I would agree with you completely if the Collector Base was say a Reaper base to the same sort of construction origin as say Object Rho or any of the other strange devices we've seen during the events of ME1 and 2. To say that Collector technology itself indoctrinates is something you can not support, because we've seen no evidence in the past of Collector technology indoctrinating subjects. We know that Collector's are clones and are given implants and we know that Collector's are capable of operating Reaper technology (i.e., the construction of the Reaper in the basement) but that's the extent of it. That's not to say that anyone should just barge through paying no attention to potential risks, but the only object at the moment that we should proceed with more caution would be to the Human-Reaper's remains in the basement.

As to your intercepted transmission example; as far as I know there is no way for the enemy to know whether transmissions have been intercepted until a pattern starts to emerge from enemy movements. Intercepted transmissions are important regardless however because they hold the potential to save lives. If the information is purposely leaked, that's another issue again, but I honestly wouldn't be able to give you an answer because that lies wholly beyond my experiences etc, and it would depend on many factors before I could really decide straight up on what to do.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I agree with DTKT TIM shows his true colors when you first tell him that you're going to destroy the base and he says "This base could secure humanities future both against the Reapers and beyond." That told me that he'd use it to try and dominate everyone in the galaxy with it... and I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not fighting against the Reapers just to hand it over to a mad man who wants to use that same tech to control the entire galaxy.

[Arijharn]

DTKT wrote...
Consider something else. To me, Cerberus is pro-human. Not in the "we understand the alien species and we want to cohabit with them" but more akin to "we want as much power over everyone else". To my Shepard (keyword being my here) that cannot stand.

But again, that's just my own perception of Cerberus and it's past actions. With a small dose of meta-gaming to. 

Okay sure, but Cerberus can be treated and get it's due after the Reapers invade.

What your strategy seems to be is that you're looking outside your window at people on the street who you expect to be up to no good (and very may well be) and are calmly levelling your pistol at them but at the expense of two thugs that are literally just about to kick down the door to your house. Not only this though, but in this hypothetical house, where you are in relation to the thugs and the nefarious passer-by's, you can only swing your pistol fast enough to fire upon one target, leaving you exposed to the second, and your pistol shot may not have even wounded the first.

All I'm saying is save that ammo, don't take potshots at those passerby's just yet, wait until the step on your lawn (and take pictures so you can prove the fact afterwards!).

[Xivai]

It's also an instance of evil is dumb oddly enough. Now look what happened. TIM got indocrinated. God damn. I NEVER SEEN THAT COMING!!!! OH NO SIR EEEEE! /cruise control for win caps.

Good god anyone with a brain cell knew that **** was bad. Just being near Reaper tech can **** your brain up. TIM's been around tons of the artifacts for god knows how long. He may have always been a traitor. I have no idea. Maybe he turned recently, but all I know is that in ME3 he is going to be indoctrinated.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dave of Canada wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Object Rho-made by Reapers
Collector Base- made by Reapers.

You want to take the risk, go righ ahead.

Relays - made by Reapers.
Omega - made by Reapers.
Citadel - made by Reapers.
Conduit - made with Reaper technology after examining it.
Thannix Cannon - made with Reaper technology after examining it.
EDI - made with Reaper technology after examining it.

Society is built on Reaper technology.

"Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays, our technology. By using it, your society develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." - Sovereign.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 12 avril 2011 - 03:37 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Look at it this way. Think of the Citadel fleet, Alliance and every other ally you've made in the game as a member of a single unit. Then you find a really big gun... you have two options give the big gun to the most untrustworthy person who is just as likely to attack your allies as they are to help you or don't use the gun.

So in a fight would you give a gernade launcher to a person who talks to an imaginary cat called Chuck? lol

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Arijharn wrote...

I would agree with you completely if the Collector Base was say a Reaper base to the same sort of construction origin as say Object Rho or any of the other strange devices we've seen during the events of ME1 and 2. To say that Collector technology itself indoctrinates is something you can not support, because we've seen no evidence in the past of Collector technology indoctrinating subjects. We know that Collector's are clones and are given implants and we know that Collector's are capable of operating Reaper technology (i.e., the construction of the Reaper in the basement) but that's the extent of it. That's not to say that anyone should just barge through paying no attention to potential risks, but the only object at the moment that we should proceed with more caution would be to the Human-Reaper's remains in the basement.

As to your intercepted transmission example; as far as I know there is no way for the enemy to know whether transmissions have been intercepted until a pattern starts to emerge from enemy movements. Intercepted transmissions are important regardless however because they hold the potential to save lives. If the information is purposely leaked, that's another issue again, but I honestly wouldn't be able to give you an answer because that lies wholly beyond my experiences etc, and it would depend on many factors before I could really decide straight up on what to do.

There are actually a lot of examples of elaborate fakes like my transmission in history. The most famous is the 603rd Ghost Division, or the Inflatable Army, as it is more commonly known.

Spoof radio", as it was called, was handled by the Signal Company
Special. Operators created phony traffic nets, impersonating the radio
operators from real units. They learned the art of mimicking an
operator’s method of sending Morse Code so that the enemy would never
catch on that the real unit and its radio operator were long gone.

Also, as soon as an enemy knows their code is deciphered or that their transmissions can be intercepted, they stop using that means of communication. The reapers definitely know we have the base. They know everything we could possibly gain from having the base. They also have shown in the past to be experts at predicting the behavior of organics based on the technology they posses - their entire civilization is based on not allowing organics to develop tech that the Reapers have not already mastered. Thus it seems to me illogical to use tech they know about.

So there are a bunch of different ways it could backfire, indoctrination, false messages left over before they abandoned the base, tactical preparations based on known base technology, the possibility of it being used as a "listening post" in some way we can't trace. I don't think we can rule out indoctrination - they were building a Reaper in there. You can't say that it will give us insights into the Reapers and also say there's no risk of indoctrination, have your found cake and eat it too, as it were.

I'm actually more worried about the tactical implications than indoctrination. I've gone through this before in other threads, but to sum up - If I were the Reapers, I'd put substandard tech on the Collector base.

Metaphor from Star Trek: TNG. At one point, the Enterprise encounters a ship that has laser weapons. Laser weapons would be advanced to our 1980s minds, but to the Enterprise they were simply irrelevant and their shields shrugged them off like nothing. So, say we have guns. Ok, we know the guns won't work. But the lasers aren't necessarily any better. They may seem better to us, but the Enterprise doesn't care. Lasers are literally exactly as effective against the Enterprise as a conventional gun would be.

So say we find "lasers" on the Collector ship. We think they're great weapons, spend a huge chunk of our military budget on them, and then it turns out they're just as crap as the guns we already have, when we're firing them at the Enterprise  the Reapers.

Now bear in mind, once again, that I am not saying this stuff is certain. I am simply saying that there are a lot of reasons to be paranoid. There are just as many reasons to be paranoid as not.

And the reason I classified base keepers as hubristic is that they argue vehemently against the very idea that both choices are equally valid. I always concede that the other choice may turn out to be the correct one, so I view myself as less overconfident. When someone argues against the premise that both decisions may be valid, I consider them somewhat overconfident.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2011 - 04:26 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

@ISpeakTheTruth: Look at from another angle:

What is clear is that the reapers wanted the mass relays and the technology behind it to be found. But from the quote I posted above it isn't clear that they wanted all their technology to be found.

If the technology given is useful enough then it is likely to be the focus of science for a while. My guess is that the reapers might want do that to avoid proper research that may lead to the same technology, but now has an equal understanding of its basics.

Instead they were given technology that can be applied, but have no idea how it actually works. So the galaxy is kept dumb to make the developments of the civilizations predictable. The reapers must be really good at those predictions, because they have done it many times before. That makes the reaper's targets easier to harvest in the future.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 12 avril 2011 - 04:43 .

[Quole]

When was it ever a good idea?

[Labrev]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

Sorry I'm late.

Not
sure what you mean about the Derelict Reaper. Shepard may have played a
pivitol role in Sovereign's defeat, but ultimately Sovereign was finally taken
down after the Alliance concentrated fire on it long enough to bring
down its shields and finished it off. True, it didn't do so without
devastating much of the Citadel's fleet. But casualties and collateral
damage are an inevitable reality of the war ahead. What's your point?

And, the base is NOT a viable piece of evidence. It doesn't even
belong to the Reapers nor have evidence of their
existence. Yeah, there's that human Reaper, but  you know what the
Council said about Sovereign after seeing it with their own eyes. "We
have no reason to believe it wasn't a geth ship." A
"Reaper" is an ambiguous term and there's no concrete idea about what
it is. Show people the human Reaper and they'll just conclude it's a
giant synthetic human that the Collectors tried to make. Besides, only
Cerberus has access to it anyway. LOL if you think they'd share.

If
you're hoping that the galaxy can somehow be "ready" to face the
Reapers before they arrive, you're going to be disappointed. It is
likely that no significant mobilization against them will even take
place until they finally arrive. And by then, they will likely have
started doing some serious damage and killing millions of people. At
this point, though, there's really no way around that. Having the base
or not having it doesn't change that.

I don't deny the potential
value of the base. All I meant to say there was that people need to stop
arguing that the base can't be thrown away because it will help us
fight the Reapers, because we don't know that. Don't give credit where
it's not due.

My conclusion, ultimately, was that it was too
dangerous to be kept. Considering the circumstances, that is. And no,
emotions did not play any part in my thinking. It is dangerous on a
number of levels. First off, the technology itself may not be safe.
We're playing with forces that are possibly beyond our comprehension.
The Reapers are practically gods compared to us as far as understanding
of technology goes. There's a chance that, in trying to use their
technology, we'll just end up destroying ourselves. Lots of things have
gone wrong just trying to figure out Reaper tech. And go back to
Mordin's talks about technological advancement: advancement before
society is ready - disasterous. That's one concern. It may or may have
proven valid after keeping it and researching it, but it's a factor that
goes into the thinking.

Then there's the question of what it
means if it IS useful. That's where Cerberus makes this complicated. If not
for them, this is not even much of an issue. But since it is for them,
they must be considered in the calculus as well. We've seen how many of their projects go straight to hell. Maybe it's because they are labeled a terrorist organization, and thus cannot always recruit competant scientists or because they cannot operate openly through the galaxy because of their reputation. They have a propensity for fail, it's just a fact. Second of all, say they do salvage powerful weaponry, ships, or even the token deus ex machina. Whatever they do get out of it, Cerberus has a completely monopoly over it. Giving that kind of power to any one entity is risky enough, what to say of one that you know literally nothing about outside Lazarus Cell and is run by a man who you do not know. Giving them the knowledge from the makers of the mass-relays, potentially the know-how to fight enemies as big as the Reapers themselves, is making them incredibly strong. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

It's a catch-22 when it comes down to it. The base itself is not worth keeping unless it gives you worthwhile technology, but then if it does, it might be in the wrong hands altogether.

Too many variables, too many unknowns, too risky. Ultimately just an UN-calculated risk, and thus, not worth taking. "I'm not going to let fear compromise who I am" Shepard says as he sets the bomb to blow the base. The imminent threat of the Reapers' arrival does not justify making a bad decision.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 12 avril 2011 - 05:53 .

[Arijharn]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
And the reason I classified base keepers as hubristic is that they argue vehemently against the very idea that both choices are equally valid. I always concede that the other choice may turn out to be the correct one, so I view myself as less overconfident. When someone argues against the premise that both decisions may be valid, I consider them somewhat overconfident.

I haven't posted to your other analogy's because you've posted em before, and I've responded to em too, however I just want to touch upon this statement above.

Since you don't know me very well, I'll try to point out some aspects of my personality:
a) I believe that I'm pretty honourable; if I see something that proves a point of view in opposition to mine, I'll concede the point, if someone can successfully argue against me, I'll be honest about it -- I don't see the point of dishonest 'arguments.'
I'm if anything a 'pessimistic pragmatist' 

In that regard; if I thought your general theory held any water, I'd concede the point. As it is; I don't, which is why I think your theory is plain wrong. This isn't against you as a person (and I feel the need to stress this in case this wasn't clear) but your opinion which I feel in this situation; is flawed.

But, doesn't it say something when you concede points to your opponent by saying they might have something of merit to argue about, but they don't in return? Okay, they could be rude or whatever, but they are unanimous in their decision, they sort of have a clarity of purpose ("One vision! One Purpose! The Technology of Peace!" - /sigh sorry had to put that in there, bonus points if you get the reference though!) to which it must be said; the pro base destroyers lack in comparison.

I have destroyed the base too btw; my argument wasn't to 'spite TIM,' but it was about Indoctrination, but then I thought: "hangon, no Collector tech has in itself indoctrinated before!" That also presupposes that Indoctrination is insurmountable, and frankly I think the sooner we can thwart this the better, and it's better by far to worry about it before the Reapers actually turn up.

[Arijharn]

Saphra Deden wrote...

No, you don't. You have indisputable proof that the base will provide you with advanced technology. You know this because you've seen this technology in action. Whether it will be useful against the Reapers or not isn't known, but it is implied. After all if the base was building a Reaper then it holds the secrets of Reaper construction and thus their capabilities.

You have no evidence that the base can indoctrinate anybody and have evidence suggesting otherwise. The Collectors were not indoctrinated and neither was your crew or the colonists that were held prisoner.

There is no logical reason to destroy the base without first examining it. The choices are not equal.

I hate it when we basically say the same thing but you're like 100 times more eloquent about it. It happens with Dean as well :'(

[CulturalGeekGirl]

The entire premise of this thread is that it's simply inconceivable that keeping the base could be a bad idea. And I think we know what that means. If keeping the base warps Cerberus, and one of its operatives stabs you in the back, will you look to the sky and say "No... this cannot be... it's... impossible." Because I've heard that before.

I've given my reasons. I don't think "but we haven't seen this particular kind of Reaper-related thing indoctrinate before, so surely it's safe!" is a valid reason to think it won't indoctrinate. I don't think "but we've seen the technology work against us, therefore it must work against the Reapers" is a good refutation of my claim that it may not be very effective against the Reapers. And I've seen no acknowledgment or rebuttal of my theory that the tech will inherently warp the thinking of those who use it, bending out tactics in a way the Reapers can predict, which seems to reflect the Reaper's modus operandi.

On all those points we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Of course, I've conceded that this is all supposition, and I could be wrong about it. That's why I believe both options are valid, as previously stated. I would not be surprised if keeping the base turns out to have been the correct idea. If it turns out to be, I will merely adjust my fundamental assumptions and adapt. I suppose that is the other difference - I believe it is possible to adapt to mistakes and changing circumstances.

I guess I'm saying, I can't wrap my head around this kind of certainty regarding a circumstance with so many unknown variables. So I will ask this question: If keeping the base did turn out to hurt more than it helps, how would you react? How would you process it?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 avril 2011 - 09:02 .