904 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

wrt Destiny Ascension: http://l-clausewitz....com/263863.html
Regardless of casualty numbers, it's very clear to anyone with a smattering of elementary strategy and tactics that saving the DA is the better option. The situation is almost exactly as the first scenario, except Sovereign being the enemy cavalry can't come to the geth fleet's rescue, and the human fleet being the friendly cavalry can't get at Sovereign until the arms open anyway. Basic Mass and Economy of Force (two concepts that military officer Shepard SHOULD know) tells you this.

It is NOT a case of "you don't know what's going to happen." C'est la guerre.

In the article you linked there is an unspoken caviat, namely that the red and blue forces are equal. If either side's horse was better against horse than against infantry, then that changes the situation.

And in fact they aren't equal. Blue's horse appeared on the horizon, so it is initially further away from the battle.

And then there is the issue of these being infantry/cavalry tactics when there is no good analogy to infantry in a space battle. The closest analogy would be naval tactics, but naval vessels don't have regenerative sheilding, so even that is a limited analogy.

Most importantly though as I said in my other post, we don't know the battlefield. The ships attacking the DA might not have been the best targets at the time. Sovereign being the enemy cavalry is an interesting analogy. What if the enemy cavalry was dismounted but could mount up and join the fray at any time? Or more precisely, what if the enemy cavalry wasn't in the battle because it was dismounted and working their way to a communications room to call an airstrike down on your positions and win the battle all at once?

Going back to that web page, if the red cavalry hits the blue infantry they might well do more damage temporarily, but if they can concentrate on the blue cavalry and take out the command, they might lose more troops initially but win the battle faster and possibly win the war outright. On a RL battlefield, all things are not equal.

[Moiaussi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well, my official stance is actually this. Since we can't see the whole battle we have to trust the narrative and the narrative tells us that sacrificing the DA is the tactically superior option.

I think there is enough information to bias us in that direction, but definately not enough to conclude that to be a fact. Even if it is the logical decision, the one that, based on all information to those actually in the battle is best tactically, it could still be the worse decision. Both sides have green troops and are not going to always react as expected, coordination isn't perfect, and the fleets are in melee, not coordinated formations.

[Ice Cold J]

Golden Owl wrote...

Ice Cold J wrote...

As a paragon player (mostly), I'm starting to feel for renegades.

It sounds like EVERY Renegade decision (including saving the Collector Base), is gonna make ME3 all the more challenging for them. No Rachni, Council/galaxy distrust you, Cerebus (now enemy) is more powerful.

Renegades are gettin' screwed, IMO.

Though by the same token, a number of renegade trigger options in ME2, make their battles easier.

And too many conclusions are still being made about a game none of us has played yet, we really don't know how it's all going to pan out...I do not see BW making the game less enjoyable or fulfilling for renegades.

The only two I can think of off the top of my head are taking out the guy working on the gunship and frying the Weyrloc krogan.

And yes, those make two "battles" easier, but I'm talking about something that would make the war effort easier in ME3. The only thing I can see at the moment is that killing the Council might've ignited a galactic arms race, making the armies stronger and MAYBE killing the Rachni Queen means not having to fight Rachni husks, although I'm assuming they'd also fight FOR you, making it cancel itself out.

You are right. We're still speculating, so we shouldn't get too wrapped up in it, but it's something to discuss and pass the time for the next 9 months.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Instead of seeing a Council who insults you, you get essentially the same dialogue with Anderson who supports you. And you end up with Spectre status either way. In what way is having 3 politicians insult you a benefit? If the dialogue with the Council counts as 'extra content' then the similar dialogue with Anderson counts as content paragons don't get.

Renegades don't get to see the Council at all and they're stil insulted.  Anderson's there no matter what you do... so talking to him is not a benefit over Paragons.  Additionally, your Spectre status is returned to you under considerably worse circumstances.  Anderson backs you no matter what, but the Council gives Paragons their blessing.

"Talk to this guy some more" is not an equivalent.  And giving Shepard his Spectre status back doesn't decrease Anderson's popularity in the Paragon playthrough (neither does it decrease the Council's popularity for that matter).  Renegades are still getting the shorter end of the stick.. hard to deny it.

It is a safe bet that he isn't allowed to walk out of the court room any time he pleases. Precisely how do you put someone on trial without arresting or charging them? Someone turning themselves in to authorities voluntarily is still detained.

Voluntary attendance makes it all irrelevant.  Because Shepard agreed to go, he volunteered himself to any proceedures or rules/regulations they abide by.

Moiaussi wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Well, my official stance is actually this. Since we can't see the whole battle we have to trust the narrative and the narrative tells us that sacrificing the DA is the tactically superior option.

I think there is enough information to bias us in that direction

Thank you... Paragon favoritism... the game does it.  Renegades may have made the equal or better choice (from a casualty perspective) if all the numbers were posted up... but the lack of content for the Renegade side prevents that... as usual.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 01:49 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Renegades don't get to see the Council at all and they're stil insulted.  Anderson's there no matter what you do... so talking to him is not a benefit over Paragons.  Additionally, your Spectre status is returned to you under considerably worse circumstances.  Anderson backs you no matter what, but the Council gives Paragons their blessing.

"Talk to this guy some more" is not an equivalent.  And giving Shepard his Spectre status back doesn't decrease Anderson's popularity in the Paragon playthrough (neither does it decrease the Council's popularity for that matter).  Renegades are still getting the shorter end of the stick.. hard to deny it.

So you are really sticking with this seeing the council is a benefit in and of itself mantra? Even though it is otherwise essentially identical dialogue and both get Spectre status? Frankly I think you are just being overly picky. I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Voluntary attendance makes it all irrelevant.  Because Shepard agreed to go, he volunteered himself to any proceedures or rules/regulations they abide by.

No, that doesn't follow. For example if the Alliance invoked some anti terrorism law that allows them to torture Shepard until he confesses, or simply ran a kangaroo court, it is a safe bet that isn't what Shepard agreed to. It is also a safe bet that he wouldn't be allowed to simply walk out.

Thank you... Paragon favoritism... the game does it.  Renegades may have made the equal or better choice (from a casualty perspective) if all the numbers were posted up... but the lack of content for the Renegade side prevents that... as usual.

Context. I was talking about the situation we were deciding upon, not the results, and was saying that there is enough about the situation to bias us towards saving the DA, but that there is NOT enough to be certain we were right. But then you don't really care about renegade anything, just about how BW labels actions.

If renegade really believes in 'mission first' and a situation is such that saving someone is better tactically than not, it should be renegade AND paragon, with the only difference being how the situation is spun.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

So you are really sticking with this seeing the council is a benefit in and of itself mantra? Even though it is otherwise essentially identical dialogue and both get Spectre status? Frankly I think you are just being overly picky. I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Having the Council give you their blessing, and actually seeing them (along with Anderson) is better than just seeing Anderson.  Having the Council officially support you compared to Anderson doing it to the disdain of the Council also favors the Paragon choice.

It's not picky, it's Paragon decisions providing the best outcomes... and it's not just here, but for every big choice where the Paragon/Renegade choices are available.

No, that doesn't follow. For example if the Alliance invoked some anti terrorism law that allows them to torture Shepard until he confesses, or simply ran a kangaroo court, it is a safe bet that isn't what Shepard agreed to. It is also a safe bet that he wouldn't be allowed to simply walk out.

If Shepard agreed to be tortured, then they could torture him without violating any political hierarchy.  Most people as old as Shepard is knows what a Trial/Hearing is and how they go... if you're implying that Hackett was asking Shepard to show up for torture, you've got it wrong lol.

Hackett:  "We want to torture you Shepard, so show up with your blues on... ready to take the HIT... a REAL HIT... like a Punch to the FACE!"

Shepard:  ".... sure okay."

Context. I was talking about the situation we were deciding upon, not the results, and was saying that there is enough about the situation to bias us towards saving the DA, but that there is NOT enough to be certain we were right. But then you don't really care about renegade anything, just about how BW labels actions.

If renegade really believes in 'mission first' and a situation is such that saving someone is better tactically than not, it should be renegade AND paragon, with the only difference being how the situation is spun.

Whether to "try" and save the Council at the cost of potentially sacrificing the only chance of stopping Sovereign (and consequently dooming the entire galaxy... including the Council)?  If a Renegade really believes in 'mission first' or even 'save the galaxy,' the Council would've come 2nd to preventing galactic extinction.

To put the entire galaxy on the line (including the life of the Council) in order to "try" and save the Council was extremely wreckless (and based on the short-term moral "right" of "they need help, lets save them)... but it paid off (with less lives lost, more content, and more positive reactions than the Renegade choice)... but that's more Paragon favoritism for you.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 05:07 .

[tjzsf]

Moiaussi wrote...
I just love these backseat admirals providing expert commentary on a battle we only see a brief clip of in a cut scene.
-snip-
Given how little we know, it is impossible to make any claims on the results. It may even be that saving the DA made the most tactical and strategic sense to experts who know all the stats at the time the decision is made, but was the worse decision anyway due to luck or some other factor.

You're *supposed* to backseat admiral. That's the point of having you make that decision in the first place. And you can only judge a decision by what is known at the time, so this talk of "may even be that saving the DA made the most tactical and strategic
sense to experts who know all the stats at the time the decision is
made, but was the worse decision anyway due to luck or some other
factor." is moot because the second half of that sentence is stuff that could not possibly have been known at the time.

tldr: roleplaying means backseat admiraling means it doesn't matter if you know stuff later that makes one decision better by hindsight. The "better decision" as used here and before means the one that's better based on what is currently known.

Moiaussi wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

wrt Destiny Ascension: http://l-clausewitz....com/263863.html
It is NOT a case of "you don't know what's going to happen." C'est la guerre.

In
the article you linked there is an unspoken caviat, namely that the red
and blue forces are equal. If either side's horse was better against
horse than against infantry, then that changes the situation.

And in fact they aren't equal. Blue's horse appeared on the horizon, so it is initially further away from the battle.

And
then there is the issue of these being infantry/cavalry tactics when
there is no good analogy to infantry in a space battle. The closest
analogy would be naval tactics, but naval vessels don't have
regenerative sheilding, so even that is a limited analogy.
-snip

This is what's called attacking the analogy in all parts except the parts that are actually cited as analogous. It's often done by targeting the specifics of an analogy, which is easy to do because analogies are generally very general, and beating that analogy like a Roman legionaire initiate on a strawman. It's also not very good at convincing the analogy maker (as well as bystanders) that the rebutter's point is actually legit.

The analogy is purely used to illustrate the concept of mass and economy of force, and just because it's an infantry/cavalry example does not invalidate it's application to space battles (hit less of their guys with more of your guys is a pretty universal principle). All of which go back to my post that it doesn't matter that you the player are given limited information and are not precognitive (unless you're doing a subsequent playthrough and/or metagaming). You have limited info, so you make the best decision possible based on what you know and what Shepard should know. Hell, all those things you don't have access to? Shepard honestly should have just asked for that data - "i read you DA, how many ships on your side, how many geth ships, positions, send it to my omnitool."

Saphra Deden wrote...

No they won't because they are still
being attacked by the Citadel fleet. If you let the DA blow up you see
more Citadel ships approaching it right after. Those ships will keep the
geth occupied. The geth can't just turn and attack you because then
they leave themselves exposed.

If they are being attacked by the Citadel fleet, then they can't be blowing up the DA. Unless you mean to say that 1. the Citadel fleet doesn't get there until after the DA is blown up and the arms open, in which case it's still better to save it because it's a free surprise attack on the geth's rear and any small losses you take get replaced by the remaining elements of the DA battlegroup that are now alive plus the DA's big guns, or 2. the Citadel fleet is there and keeping the geth at bay, which means that either they are just enough of a match for the geth for the human fleet to get at Soveriegn unharassed, but then that also means that the human fleet should still be helping them during that time when the arms are closed and they can't get at Sovvy anyway (mass and economy of force and all that)

Also, Moiaussi, I note that you ahve dropped the earlier points about how paragon decisions all make better sense than renegade ones if you don't metagame. Answer them or concede. Again, "we don't have 100% complete information" isn't an acceptable rebuttal; a decision is judged by what is known at the time. If only 50% of the information is available, with a further 10% being extrapolatable, then the remaining 40% cannot be considered when evaliuating the decision.

Also also - I think you (Moiaussi) take a far too limiting view of what "mission first" renegade actually means. My "mission first" renegade did everyone's loyalty mission because that maximizes their chances of succeeding in the suicide mission. Whether you could get through it by having some unloyal squadmates is irrelevant, as that's not something that could have been known to Shepard at the time.

[tjzsf]

Montezuma IV wrote...

Why do you want to punish the Good Guy? You a sadist or something? >_>

Quite simply, because Paragon/Renegade isn't supposed to be "good/evil", but idealistic/cynical or moralistic/pragmatic. And also because the road to hell is paved with good intentions, at least a couple of which should be the ones encountered by a Paragon Shepard.

Will have no complaints if a paragon player gets extra content in the form of another rachni war that they have to put down in a "10 years later" type of future final mission. Eqvuialent renegade content being killing a bunch of batarians that live where the rachni would have expanded.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I made another thread about this but I'll post it here too:
_____________________________________________________________________
CH = Casey Hudson on Paragon/Renegade choices for Mass Effect 3
GS = Gamespot interviewer

CH: "It does get into grey areas and more and more we want to try and obfuscate ultimately what is right or wrong because ultimately Paragon and Renegade is not meant to be 'Good' and 'Evil.' It's a little bit different where it's a question of 'do you sacrifice anything for the greater good' or are you unwilling to make certain sacrifices just to justify the end."

GS: "and then you have to deal with those consequences"

CH: "that's right"

9:32


So there may be a reason to role-play for the best outcome afterall (particularly the first sentence).... They sure haven't done that yet, so far the Blue button has always been the most beneficial button.

Then again it still wouldn't surprise me if the Paragon choices end up being the most favored choices of the game once more.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 06:19 .

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...

It isn't, provided that the Council wave their protection of the Spectre. The context within this thread has been that Spectre status was not a reward to paragons in that it provided no benefits.

'Wave' their protection? Moi... they'd be throwing Shephard to the wolves for the sake of providing a political scapegoat. The Council would probably be even more keen to disavow knowledge and association with Shephard after the events of Arrival than the muckity-mucks at the head of the Systems Alliance.

If the trial of Shephard isn't to a satisfactory standard I think that the Council would think it would further destabilize the Terminus Systems (which I'm assuming that the Batarian's must hold the greater balance of power amongst simply because they're the only sort of major power there, with the possible(?) exception being the Geth.) which could only be bad news for the Council because otherwise they're keen to not touch the area. If it was seen that the Council did nothing to hold Shephard to account, then yeah I could see that escalating to war (or at least a serious case of brinkmanship).

As to the context that you refer to though, I think I'd agree with it to be honest. Being a Spectre doesn't change anything (of major note; although I can think of a couple of lines that change to reflect it). I think the problem though is that you can be either a paragon or renegade and still receive the Spectre status or vice versa.

[Seboist]

It always made sense to me for Shepard to NOT to have Spectre status during ME2. That way the Council doesn't get implicated for anything Shep does in the Terminus Systems.

Modifié par Seboist, 09 juin 2011 - 09:43 .

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

You're *supposed* to backseat admiral. That's the point of having you make that decision in the first place. And you can only judge a decision by what is known at the time, so this talk of "may even be that saving the DA made the most tactical and strategic
sense to experts who know all the stats at the time the decision is
made, but was the worse decision anyway due to luck or some other
factor." is moot because the second half of that sentence is stuff that could not possibly have been known at the time.

tldr: roleplaying means backseat admiraling means it doesn't matter if you know stuff later that makes one decision better by hindsight. The "better decision" as used here and before means the one that's better based on what is currently known.

Command decisions are made on incomplete information all the time. Competent leaders understand the risks they are taking and don't take results for granted.

So yes, we are supposed to make these decisions, but there is a vast difference between justifying decisions based on the information at hand, and trying to claim some sort of magical combat precognition that lets you always predict the outcome of every battle regardless of how little information is available.

This is what's called attacking the analogy in all parts except the parts that are actually cited as analogous. It's often done by targeting the specifics of an analogy, which is easy to do because analogies are generally very general, and beating that analogy like a Roman legionaire initiate on a strawman. It's also not very good at convincing the analogy maker (as well as bystanders) that the rebutter's point is actually legit.

The analogy is purely used to illustrate the concept of mass and economy of force, and just because it's an infantry/cavalry example does not invalidate it's application to space battles (hit less of their guys with more of your guys is a pretty universal principle). All of which go back to my post that it doesn't matter that you the player are given limited information and are not precognitive (unless you're doing a subsequent playthrough and/or metagaming). You have limited info, so you make the best decision possible based on what you know and what Shepard should know. Hell, all those things you don't have access to? Shepard honestly should have just asked for that data - "i read you DA, how many ships on your side, how many geth ships, positions, send it to my omnitool."

IIRC, Shepard had his hands full at the time of the decision, and is a groundling anyway with no naval training or experience.

My point though was that Economy of Force is a great and legitimate concept, but without the information I listed, it can't really be properly utilized. The only context the question made any sense was 'these are two targets that seem equally advantageous, so which has the highest strategic importance?' After all, Joker does have some naval combat experience as well as extensive training. Some of the other fleet command staff may even have experience from the first contact war. Shepard has none.

Also, Moiaussi, I note that you ahve dropped the earlier points about how paragon decisions all make better sense than renegade ones if you don't metagame. Answer them or concede. Again, "we don't have 100% complete information" isn't an acceptable rebuttal; a decision is judged by what is known at the time. If only 50% of the information is available, with a further 10% being extrapolatable, then the remaining 40% cannot be considered when evaliuating the decision.

Also also - I think you (Moiaussi) take a far too limiting view of what "mission first" renegade actually means. My "mission first" renegade did everyone's loyalty mission because that maximizes their chances of succeeding in the suicide mission. Whether you could get through it by having some unloyal squadmates is irrelevant, as that's not something that could have been known to Shepard at the time.

If RL military action worked the way it does in ME, even the simplest military engagements would have insane casualty rates, since there is no way that standing armies are going to spend most of their time dealing with the personal problems of every soldier. Worrying about everyone's personal problems is paragon, not renegade. Renegades should be saying:
 
'Suck it up, soldier and be a professional. We are here to do a job and that is what we are going to do. If we lose, none of your other problems matter. Miranda, if we lose, you and your sister will both be DEAD. So will your son, Thane, and your father, Jacob. Zaheed? Your revenge will be pyrhic. Grunt? Krogan need battle to fire up their hormones and this mission is going to make sparring with a Thresher Maw seem boring. Samara? Your daughter will kill a few people if she gets away. If the collectors enable a Reaper victory, everyone dies.

Get your priorities STRAIGHT, people! We are at WAR!

And in fact the reality is that you can win just fine without the loyalty missions, and without even upgrading the Normandy. You just take more casualties.

And what do you mean I dropped metagaming related questions? If you are saying that I have to accept your claims of what is going to happen in ME3 as fact, good luck with that. If we have to agree to disagree fair enough, but I am not obligated to keep repeating myself when neither of us is being persuaded by the other, nor am I obligated to concede anything simply because you or someone else disagrees with me.

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

'Wave' their protection? Moi... they'd be throwing Shephard to the wolves for the sake of providing a political scapegoat. The Council would probably be even more keen to disavow knowledge and association with Shephard after the events of Arrival than the muckity-mucks at the head of the Systems Alliance.

As to the context that you refer to though, I think I'd agree with it to be honest. Being a Spectre doesn't change anything (of major note; although I can think of a couple of lines that change to reflect it). I think the problem though is that you can be either a paragon or renegade and still receive the Spectre status or vice versa.

Actually the problem is that pro-renegades don't acknowledge that you get Spectre status either way and seem to think that talking with the Council is some sort of benefit.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Molaussi, after saving the Council, if you just talked to Anderson instead of seeing the Council again, it'd be less than if the Council were present along with Anderson. Which is more, 1 or 4?

But that's not the only positive influence of that Paragon decision... check the news. Renegades files also have the alien riots that Paragons don't seem to have to worry about as much (if at all). Humanity is not honored in any way by the Renegade choice when the opposite is true for Paragons.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 10:41 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
Having the Council give you their blessing, and actually seeing them (along with Anderson) is better than just seeing Anderson.  Having the Council officially support you compared to Anderson doing it to the disdain of the Council also favors the Paragon choice.

It's not picky, it's Paragon decisions providing the best outcomes... and it's not just here, but for every big choice where the Paragon/Renegade choices are available.

Individual milage may vary... to me they aren't giving any blessings, they are giving lip service to try to keep Shepard contained or under control. Accusing you of treason without accepting that you are essentially working with Stalin against a greater common threat isn't exactly 'supportive.' They show disdain in both situations.

If you personally consider that the paragon 'the best outcome' fair enough, but BW can't cater to every personal preference.

If Shepard agreed to be tortured, then they could torture him without violating any political hierarchy.  Most people as old as Shepard is knows what a Trial/Hearing is and how they go... if you're implying that Hackett was asking Shepard to show up for torture, you've got it wrong lol.

You really love those straw men. Shepard agreed to face a fair trial, not to torture and not to a kangaroo court or summary judgement. Hackett could be betraying Shepard or might not be in on it. We do know for a fact that there are those in the Alliance that aren't as supportive of Shepard as Hackett, and for that matter the Alliance shouldn't even know about Shepard's involvement other than by way of Hackett ratting Shepard out.

Whether to "try" and save the Council at the cost of potentially sacrificing the only chance of stopping Sovereign (and consequently dooming the entire galaxy... including the Council)?  If a Renegade really believes in 'mission first' or even 'save the galaxy,' the Council would've come 2nd to preventing galactic extinction.

To put the entire galaxy on the line (including the life of the Council) in order to "try" and save the Council was extremely wreckless (and based on the short-term moral "right" of "they need help, lets save them)... but it paid off (with less lives lost, more content, and more positive reactions than the Renegade choice)... but that's more Paragon favoritism for you.

UNLESS IT ISN"T PUTTING THE GALAXY AT RISK. If it is the tacticly superior option, it is the tacticly superior option. Defeating the Geth first (including those firing on the DA) means more concentrated fire available against Sovereign, and against regenerating shields, that could be decisive. You are also protecting your flanks and rear by hitting ships that are currently occupied and out of firing position against your fleet. Stop thinking of it as saving people being a waste of time and start thinking about it as doing what is tactically best.

Renegades do 'whatever it takes.: Sometimes that means people get saved incidentally.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Molaussi, after saving the Council, if you just talked to Anderson instead of seeing the Council again, it'd be less than if the Council were present along with Anderson. Which is more, 1 or 4?

But that's not the only positive influence of that Paragon decision... check the news. Renegades files also have the alien riots that Paragons don't seem to have to worry about as much (if at all). Humanity is not honored in any way by the Renegade choice when the opposite is true for Paragons.

One passable entree served with three helpings of gruel is not a better meal than one slightly larger passable meal.

As for rioting 'aliens' (who aren't alien to the worlds they are living on), I thought that is part of what renegades wanted, namely disruptions in other empires reducing their efficiency, allowing humanity to pull ahead.

You could be right that it could be for the worst in ME3 or it could be that the other empires are at a higher state of readiness due to tensions with the Alliance and therefore are better able to defend themselves. Again, so far the differences are cosmetic only.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Individual milage may vary... to me they aren't giving any blessings, they are giving lip service to try to keep Shepard contained or under control. Accusing you of treason without accepting that you are essentially working with Stalin against a greater common threat isn't exactly 'supportive.' They show disdain in both situations.

If you personally consider that the paragon 'the best outcome' fair enough, but BW can't cater to every personal preference.

 
You're working with Cerberus... an avowed enemy of the Council... and they're reinstating your Spectre status.  That's not 'trying to get rid of you' or even 'keep you under control.'  They have all they need to get rid of you if they really wanted to... if they wanted you gone, they wouldn't have given you your Spectre status back... especially in light of working with Cerberus.  I'm not sure how you can argue that.

"Good luck with your investigation Shepard.  We hope for a quick resolution and a quick end to your relationship with Cerberus."

That's not the words of someone with disdain.  Sorry, it just isn't... that's "Support."

You really love those straw men. Shepard agreed to face a fair trial, not to torture and not to a kangaroo court or summary judgement. Hackett could be betraying Shepard or might not be in on it. We do know for a fact that there are those in the Alliance that aren't as supportive of Shepard as Hackett, and for that matter the Alliance shouldn't even know about Shepard's involvement other than by way of Hackett ratting Shepard out.

Nothing has been said or shown talking about any torture or kangaroo court/summary judgement.  We don't know any more than Shepard agreeing to go... which means agreeing to abide by its rules.  So until we do know more, all evidence points to your "Hackett could be"-viewpoint not being an issue whatsoever...

If Hackett showed the trend of behaving that way over the past 2 games, you'd have an arguement.

UNLESS IT ISN"T PUTTING THE GALAXY AT RISK. If it is the tacticly superior option, it is the tacticly superior option. Defeating the Geth first (including those firing on the DA) means more concentrated fire available against Sovereign, and against regenerating shields, that could be decisive. You are also protecting your flanks and rear by hitting ships that are currently occupied and out of firing position against your fleet. Stop thinking of it as saving people being a waste of time and start thinking about it as doing what is tactically best.

Renegades do 'whatever it takes.: Sometimes that means people get saved incidentally.

Defeating the Geth first means leaving Sovereign by himself hugging the Citadel... giving him time to regain control and summon the Reapers at any time while all the ships are dealing with small fry.  In addition to this, you're told that the only chance of stopping Sovereign would suffer heavy casualties trying to save the DA... which decreases any chance of stopping Sovereign (which practically decimated the Citadel fleet already).

The tactical thing to do is remove the greatest and gravest threat first.... and that WAS NOT the Geth.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 11:10 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

One passable entree served with three helpings of gruel is not a better meal than one slightly larger passable meal.

A hungry man is going to notice when someone else has a bigger portion of food on their plate... and made with better ingredients (even if it's generally the same dish).

As for rioting 'aliens' (who aren't alien to the worlds they are living on), I thought that is part of what renegades wanted, namely disruptions in other empires reducing their efficiency, allowing humanity to pull ahead.

The pure Renegade, yes.  The neutral Renegade, no.

You could be right that it could be for the worst in ME3 or it could be that the other empires are at a higher state of readiness due to tensions with the Alliance and therefore are better able to defend themselves. Again, so far the differences are cosmetic only.

Thus far they still "cosmetically" favor the Paragons, lol.  Anything else would be a change from the past 2 games.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...
 
You're working with Cerberus... an avowed enemy of the Council... and they're reinstating your Spectre status.  That's not 'trying to get rid of you' or even 'keep you under control.'  They have all they need to get rid of you if they really wanted to... if they wanted you gone, they wouldn't have given you your Spectre status back... especially in light of working with Cerberus.  I'm not sure how you can argue that.

"Good luck with your investigation Shepard.  We hope for a quick resolution and a quick end to your relationship with Cerberus."

That's not the words of someone with disdain.  Sorry, it just isn't... that's "Support."

That is 'diplomacy' for 'go away and don't come back until/unless you come to your senses. Here is token incentive to do so.'

Working with an enemy isn't always treason. It isn't 'treason' for a police officer to get tips or other useful information from a criminal, nor is it treason to work undercover. Assuming that Shepard's work with Cerberus is harmful to the Council is insulting given ME1. It doesn't help that Shepard holds the idiot ball too though. How does he know that the Council isn't investigating the Collectors or at least the colony disappearances? There doesn't have to be a Reaper link for there to be an obvious threat.

Nothing has been said or shown talking about any torture or kangaroo court/summary judgement.  We don't know any more than Shepard agreeing to go... which means agreeing to abide by its rules.  So until we do know more, all evidence points to your "Hackett could be"-viewpoint not being an issue whatsoever...

If Hackett showed the trend of behaving that way over the past 2 games, you'd have an arguement.

You are missing the point entirely, which is that Shepard is 'detained.' Just because he is cooperating for the momment doesn't mean he is not detained. If a prisoner sentanced to jail isn't trying to escape, that doesn't make him a free man. Whether he agrees with the sentance or not is irrelevant in that he isn't there purely by choice.

Defeating the Geth first means leaving Sovereign by himself hugging the Citadel... giving him time to regain control and summon the Reapers at any time while all the ships are dealing with small fry.  In addition to this, you're told that the only chance of stopping Sovereign would suffer heavy casualties trying to save the DA... which decreases any chance of stopping Sovereign (which practically decimated the Citadel fleet already).

The tactical thing to do is remove the greatest and gravest threat first.... and that WAS NOT the Geth.

You aren't told anything about expected casualties from either target at the time of the decision. And Sovereign didn't decimate the Citadel fleet, the Geth did. Sovereign ignored the Citadel fleet, to the exent of raming a Turian cruiser that happened to be in its flight path. Sovereign wasn't even firing on the way in.

You are close on the tactical question, but not there. The tactical thing is to remove the greatest threat that you can one-shot, and that wasn't Sovereign. It comes down to a judgement call as to how long Sovereign would take and whether you can afford to expose your rear and flanks while concentrating on it. If it takes 10 minutes of concentrated fire to get through Sovie's sheilds, but you lose 90% of your fleet working on it, you might not have enough to get through at all before those 10 minutes are up. If you only lose 50% of your fleet taking out the Geth first, you might still have enough left to take down Sovereign.

Yes those times are all made up. The point is, there is a lot of information we don't know and without it, it is impossible to make a clear judgement either way.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

A hungry man is going to notice when someone else has a bigger portion of food on their plate... and made with better ingredients (even if it's generally the same dish).

I didn't think Shepard was particularly starving for attention. As I said, individual milage may vary.

The pure Renegade, yes.  The neutral Renegade, no.

'Neutral renegade?' Inventing new terms here now?

Thus far they still "cosmetically" favor the Paragons, lol.  Anything else would be a change from the past 2 games.

The value of cosmetic differences vareis widly between individuals. BW cannot be expected to cater to everyone.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

That is 'diplomacy' for 'go away and don't come back until/unless you come to your senses. Here is token incentive to do so.'

'Diplomacy' for 'go away and don't come back until/unless you come to your senses' would be:
 
"We cannot reinstate your Spectre status while you're working with Cerberus...  You know that.  Once you finish your relationship with Cerberus, your reinstatement will be waiting... but only at that time."

Working with an enemy isn't always treason. It isn't 'treason' for a police officer to get tips or other useful information from a criminal, nor is it treason to work undercover. Assuming that Shepard's work with Cerberus is harmful to the Council is insulting given ME1. It doesn't help that Shepard holds the idiot ball too though. How does he know that the Council isn't investigating the Collectors or at least the colony disappearances? There doesn't have to be a Reaper link for there to be an obvious threat.

 
It's treason this time... want a quote? lol

"You are working with Cerberus-- an avowed enemy of the Council.  This is treason, a capital offense."  -Asari Councilor

You are missing the point entirely, which is that Shepard is 'detained.' Just because he is cooperating for the momment doesn't mean he is not detained. If a prisoner sentanced to jail isn't trying to escape, that doesn't make him a free man. Whether he agrees with the sentance or not is irrelevant in that he isn't there purely by choice.

Being detained by chioce is still not a violation of any hierarchy whatsoever.  Just like the Justicar agreed to be detained at the police station while Shepard did some running for her.

You aren't told anything about expected casualties from either target at the time of the decision. And Sovereign didn't decimate the Citadel fleet, the Geth did. Sovereign ignored the Citadel fleet, to the exent of raming a Turian cruiser that happened to be in its flight path. Sovereign wasn't even firing on the way in.

You are told about expected casualties.  Period.  You're also told that you'd suffer heavy casualties trying to save the DA.  Sovereign threatened all life in the galaxy and was the greater threat deserving attention.  You can spend all the way into Mass Effect 2 fighting Geth... they're irrelevant to galactic extinction. 

And Sovereign's threat and attacks extend beyond the ship... they include his indoctrinated. 

You are close on the tactical question, but not there. The tactical thing is to remove the greatest threat that you can one-shot, and that wasn't Sovereign. It comes down to a judgement call as to how long Sovereign would take and whether you can afford to expose your rear and flanks while concentrating on it. If it takes 10 minutes of concentrated fire to get through Sovie's sheilds, but you lose 90% of your fleet working on it, you might not have enough to get through at all before those 10 minutes are up. If you only lose 50% of your fleet taking out the Geth first, you might still have enough left to take down Sovereign.

Yes those times are all made up. The point is, there is a lot of information we don't know and without it, it is impossible to make a clear judgement either way.

Before even hearing about the Council being in danger, the rush is stopping Sovereign.   "Quick! open the station's arms, maybe the fleet can take Sovereign down before he regains control of the station!"

And in the face of Galactic Extinction... the Paragon response is:  "We need to save the Ascension... no matter what the cost!"  ... no matter what the cost.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
I didn't think Shepard was particularly starving for attention. As I said, individual milage may vary.

Shepard doesn't have to. It's the fact of whether it's there for the player or not. Milage has nothing to do with it.

Neutral renegade?' Inventing new terms here now?

The Neutral Response (Concentrate on Sovereign) gives Renegade points and the Renegade result. What do you want to call it?

The value of cosmetic differences vareis widly between individuals. BW cannot be expected to cater to everyone.

There's only 2 sides here... lol. Paragon and Renegade.

2...

And as Casey Hudson reiterated, Renegades are about 'sacrificing for the greater good' if necessary. If there is no "greater good" to the sacrifice, then what's the point of it?

There's no excuse for Paragon favoritism.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 09 juin 2011 - 07:31 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Legion of Grunt wrote...

Sometimes the Renegade option serves the galaxy best, by taking out Balak and sacrificing three people you could prevent millions of being killed in the future.Then there is shooting Conrad Verner in the foot...

that prevents millions from being annoyed by him.

Did anything in the game validate this decision so far or prove to be better than the Paragon choice based on what happens in the games thusfar?