904 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

'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."

No, that would be diplomacy aimed at everyone other than Shepard. Giving Shepard a pyrrhic status that means nothing because he is only to use it outside of Council space is lip service, only there to appease Shepard.

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

The fact that they are calling it treason rather than giving Shepard the benefit of the doubt is precisely my point.

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.

There is always choice. You can accept or you can become a fugitive and/or resist and face the consequences. Based on your logic, noone is ever detained. There was a warrant, he turned himself in voluntarily. That doesn't mean he isn't detained.

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 not told any such thing. In fact, I just re-watched it. You are told by a squad mate, who is with you, is not in communication with the outside (since you only just got com channels open) that you shouldn't sacrifice Alliance ships to save the DA. They don't know there would be any sacrifice. And the citadel arms are not even open yet! The actual choice when Joker confirms it is 'save the DA or hold back and wait'  The fleet cannot even target Sovereign yet!!!

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.

That 'open the station's arms is from your squad! The have no clue at all what the tactical situation is. In fact the DA is told they are clear before the arms even open, and as soon as the arms are open, Hackett informs the fleet to 'move in and concentrate on Sovereign.'

So given that, which is the 'obvious tacticaly better decision?' It does bug me that there is no renegade 'concentrate on Geth while we wait' option, but saving the DA is still a 'greater good' decision.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

No, that would be diplomacy aimed at everyone other than Shepard. Giving Shepard a pyrrhic status that means nothing because he is only to use it outside of Council space is lip service, only there to appease Shepard.

That quote can only be aimed at a former Spectre that's a candidate for reinstatement but working with Cerberus at the time.  Shepard is the only person in the Mass Effect universe that fits that desctiption.  So that's aimed at Shepard. 

You want his Spectre status authority to extend to the Terminus Systems or something?  Being a Spectre is as powerful as it ever was before... but as usual, you have to go to places that respect that authority to appreciate its benefits.  The Council has never given you more than that.. ever.

Did you want to fill them in on things?  Send status updates to them while you're out in the Terminus Systems?  They can't be involved.  Think about it.

The fact that they are calling it treason rather than giving Shepard the benefit of the doubt is precisely my point.

They did give him the benefit of the doubt, Shepard admitted he was working with Cerberus before the Council said that.  And working with Cerberus is treason.  There's no denying it.

There is always choice. You can accept or you can become a fugitive and/or resist and face the consequences. Based on your logic, noone is ever detained. There was a warrant, he turned himself in voluntarily. That doesn't mean he isn't detained.

The point isn't that he was detained, the point is that he voluntarily agreed when asked to show up... and even then, to show up after he finished his mission.  They hardly have anything on Shepard... and evidence in general is just great enough for Batarians to start a war... so this hearing seems to be a time to gather facts and come up with a way to prevent war with the Batarians (which could mean to sacrifice Shepard for the sake of political stability.. which neither Shepard has a problem with).  So it's a moot point.

You are not told any such thing. In fact, I just re-watched it. You are told by a squad mate, who is with you, is not in communication with the outside (since you only just got com channels open) that you shouldn't sacrifice Alliance ships to save the DA. They don't know there would be any sacrifice.

Not told any such thing?  You just re-watched it?  Really?  Try this one:

4:43

The fleet cannot even target Sovereign yet!!!

Not until Shepard allows them to by opening the arms up!!!  He's at the control station remember?  They can't get to the Council either until he opened up the relays there.

That should address the rest of your post also.

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.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juin 2011 - 05:24 .

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

That quote can only be aimed at a former Spectre that's a candidate for reinstatement but working with Cerberus at the time.  Shepard is the only person in the Mass Effect universe that fits that desctiption.  So that's aimed at Shepard. 

You want his Spectre status authority to extend to the Terminus Systems or something?  Being a Spectre is as powerful as it ever was before... but as usual, you have to go to places that respect that authority to appreciate its benefits.  The Council has never given you more than that.. ever.

Did you want to fill them in on things?  Send status updates to them while you're out in the Terminus Systems?  They can't be involved.  Think about it.

Your suggested quote was explaining to Shepard how the Council would spin this to the rest of the world, hence explaining diplomacy aimed at the outside world to Shepard. The diplomacy would be related to Shepard, but your phrasing was aimed at explaining to Shepard rather than appeasing him.

What are you talking about regarding extending Spectre status? I said no such thing. They banish Shep to a region where the status means nothing, hence rendering reinstatement meaningless. Remeber, they have a vested interest in playing down Shepard's Cerberus connections. Renouncing Shepard is renouncing a war hero as well as admitting publicly that yet another Spectre has gone rogue. It would hurt them at least as much as it would hurt Shepard, probably more.

So they tell him that they will reinstate him and do their best to get him away from civilization and nasty reporters.

They were trying to help themselves avoid political embarassment.

They did give him the benefit of the doubt, Shepard admitted he was working with Cerberus before the Council said that.  And working with Cerberus is treason.  There's no denying it.

Negotiating or working with terrorist organizations is only treason if it is actually working against your government. The definition of treason is acting against the government or nation, not working with any given entity. It might be 'aiding and abetting the enemy', but that is a lesser charge.

A simple example: If you negotiate a prisoner exchange, you have to cooperate with an enemy to do so, but it isn't treason because the exchange is deemed to be in the country's best interests even though it presumably benefits the enemy too.

The point isn't that he was detained, the point is that he voluntarily agreed when asked to show up... and even then, to show up after he finished his mission.  They hardly have anything on Shepard... and evidence in general is just great enough for Batarians to start a war... so this hearing seems to be a time to gather facts and come up with a way to prevent war with the Batarians (which could mean to sacrifice Shepard for the sake of political stability.. which neither Shepard has a problem with).  So it's a moot point.

Exactly how is that different from someone charged with a crime turning themselves over to authorities? You keep playing these semantic games.

Not told any such thing?  You just re-watched it?  Really?  Try this one:

4:43

If you are not bothering to listen, don't bother to reply. That is said by TALI, who is WITH YOU AND HAS NO CLUE WHAT THE BATTLEFIELD LOOKS LIKE. Arguably as a Quarian daughter of an admiral she might actually have some clue of fleet tactics, but not knowing the tactical situation how can she make anything resembling an informed decision?

Not until Shepard allows them to by opening the arms up!!!  He's at the control station remember?  They can't get to the Council either until he opened up the relays there.

That should address the rest of your post also.

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!"

Which presumably he starts to do as soon as he gives his answer. You might have an arguement that he shouldn't have answered at all, but should have started opening the Citadel first, but presumably starting that didn't need his full attention. The reality is that there is a delay before the soonest time the Citadel can open, and the fleet is holding back doing nothing in the meanwhile.

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.

It does bother me that there is no 'opening the citadel will take some time, take out what you can of the Geth while I work of this', but the 'no matter the cost' means nothing, in that the Ascension is safe and free to disengage before the Citadel can even open. Personally I sent them to save the DA because it seemed tacticly wise based on what little I knew, regardless of any value to the Ascension or Council. Ships concentrating fire on something else are vulnerable. You can come up behind them and punch through their rear shielding and hit the engines directly. It isn't even a given that the engines are shielded at all since it isn't clear how engine thrust (which is by definition kinetic) would interact with any rear sheilding.

[tjzsf]

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

Am not claiming magical combat precog or predicting every outcome. *Am* claiming that given the known facts, there is a better method, which is "save the DA". So yes, command decisions are made on incomplete data all the time. Am glad you agree with this. Don't see why you still claim that we need to wait until ME3 to determine how good of a decision it was.

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.

False. Shep is a naval officer (rank of Commander, which is O-5 - naval equivalent of Lt. Colonel), which is why he was the XO on the Normandy back when Anderson was still the Captain. Thus, he should have the sense to ask more information and know that the Alliance ships would have plowed through those geth like Wrex on a bunch of salarians. And the two situations do not seem equally advantageous, given a little more in-depth thought.

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.

Not so - you are taking one particular style of renegade and applying it to all renegades. Again.
Renegades are mission first. *resolving* everyone's personal problems so they all have the best chance of fulfilling the mission is perfectly consistent with that ideology. Your team is not a standing army of hundreds, it is a specialist task force comprised of at most 12 people. It's a relatively simple matter to solve all their problems before tackling the suicide mission. Whether you need everyone's "loyalty" (really "focus") to survive is irrelevant - if you are roleplaying instead of metagaming, RenShep would still be out to maximize his squad's chances of success, and that means doing the loyalty missions. Taking casualties is acceptable. Taking avoidable casualties is not.

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.

I mean the various decisions I have brought up to demonstrate how the paragon choice makes more sense than the renegade ones. Your responses to them ahve generally been "you can't judge which is
a better decision until ME3 tells you what the end result is", which implying that the "better" decision is only determinable by metagaming.

Example: freeing the rachni. I can claim that this is a better idea because the Reapers are against all organic life, so freeing the rachni gives you an additional ally against them. You don't have to worry about them turning on you because it benefits the rachni more to fight the Reapers with you than it does to fight you and the Reapers at the same time. But by your rationale, you can only tell whether this was a better idea once we know what the rachni do in ME3. The same applies to all the other decisions - and this is flawed for the following reason:

Suppose there is a company's stock you can invest in. There is a 99% chance it will give you truckloads of return, and a 1% chance the company will go under and you will lose truckloads. At the current point in time, with no other data available to you, investing in the company is the better idea even if the company later goes under, because you could not have known that at the time. Similarly, I have made no predictions for ME3 - only that certain decisions are better decisions regardless of how they turn out in ME3.

Modifié par tjzsf, 10 juin 2011 - 06:59 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
Your suggested quote was explaining to Shepard how the Council would spin this to the rest of the world, hence explaining diplomacy aimed at the outside world to Shepard. The diplomacy would be related to Shepard, but your phrasing was aimed at explaining to Shepard rather than appeasing him.

What are you talking about regarding extending Spectre status? I said no such thing. They banish Shep to a region where the status means nothing, hence rendering reinstatement meaningless. Remeber, they have a vested interest in playing down Shepard's Cerberus connections. Renouncing Shepard is renouncing a war hero as well as admitting publicly that yet another Spectre has gone rogue. It would hurt them at least as much as it would hurt Shepard, probably more.

So they tell him that they will reinstate him and do their best to get him away from civilization and nasty reporters.

They were trying to help themselves avoid political embarassment.

To appease Shepard they would provide their support and blessing for the mission he was on... even after acknowledging that working with Cerberus is treason (seriously, they're mortal enemies of eachother.. the equivalent of Al-Queda).

Turns out, that's exactly what happens in the game.  You could argue what their alterior motive is for supporting Shepard, but it still doesn't change the fact that they are supporting Shepard.

Negotiating or working with terrorist organizations is only treason if it is actually working against your government. The definition of treason is acting against the government or nation, not working with any given entity. It might be 'aiding and abetting the enemy', but that is a lesser charge.

A simple example: If you negotiate a prisoner exchange, you have to cooperate with an enemy to do so, but it isn't treason because the exchange is deemed to be in the country's best interests even though it presumably benefits the enemy too.

While I understand where you're coming from here, this situation doesn't facilitate that.  If a group is an avowed enemy (one that carries a capital offense), then associating or working with them in any capacity is an act of treason... especially concerning events outside of Council jurisdiction.  This goes doubly so for Shepard who went underground for 2 years before emerging again with this Cerberus group.

Exactly how is that different from someone charged with a crime turning themselves over to authorities? You keep playing these semantic games.

It's not semantics.  If Shepard refused to show himself on Earth and envoked his Spectre status, then he'd have to justify the death of Batarians to the Council, but that does nothing for the Batarians out for blood and the human race that's believed to be the culprit.  Right now, the Batarians can "start a witch hunt" with what they know... which could lead to an all-out war.  Shepard chooses (outside of player choice) to work with Humanity to get past this issue.  He has diplomatic immunity if he wants to invoke it, but ultimately he's doing the right thing.

Like I said before, Shepard is a hero regardless of if you're a Paragon or Renegade.

If you are not bothering to listen, don't bother to reply. That is said by TALI, who is WITH YOU AND HAS NO CLUE WHAT THE BATTLEFIELD LOOKS LIKE. Arguably as a Quarian daughter of an admiral she might actually have some clue of fleet tactics, but not knowing the tactical situation how can she make anything resembling an informed decision?

You could say the same of Joker claiming they could save the Ascension by just hearing a radio transmission.  Fact of the matter is that the game presented these things as points to consider.  Also you can hear the battle going on, so it's always possible that it's based on that combined with her own experience.  Additionally, even if you didn't believe her, the very real possibility is there because of the decimated Citadel fleet and the Council's vulnerability.

Which presumably he starts to do as soon as he gives his answer. You might have an arguement that he shouldn't have answered at all, but should have started opening the Citadel first, but presumably starting that didn't need his full attention. The reality is that there is a delay before the soonest time the Citadel can open, and the fleet is holding back doing nothing in the meanwhile.

 
Right, the whole reason he said "wait" is to "wait on trying to save the Destiny Ascension..."  Sovereign was in a different location. 

But all things considered, because no one else was saving the Destiny Ascension, the Arcturus fleet was basically all that was there.  You could risk those forces trying to save the Council and not only risk failing, but suffering massive casualties in the process... rendering any attempt to stop Sovereign (and thus the destruction of all life in the galaxy) useless.  Or you could eliminate Sovereign before he regains control (which also isn't gauranteed... Sovereign could've retaken the Citadel and summoned the Reapers before the Alliance even got there).

Why the Council doesn't eject is still beyond me... but could be blamed on Hackett for not telling them to.

It does bother me that there is no 'opening the citadel will take some time, take out what you can of the Geth while I work of this', but the 'no matter the cost' means nothing, in that the Ascension is safe and free to disengage before the Citadel can even open. Personally I sent them to save the DA because it seemed tacticly wise based on what little I knew, regardless of any value to the Ascension or Council. Ships concentrating fire on something else are vulnerable. You can come up behind them and punch through their rear shielding and hit the engines directly. It isn't even a given that the engines are shielded at all since it isn't clear how engine thrust (which is by definition kinetic) would interact with any rear sheilding.

They were in different areas (Sovereign and the Geth/DA).  But the "cost" could've been all life in the galaxy (including the Council).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 10 juin 2011 - 07:05 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

tjzsf wrote...

Taking casualties is acceptable. Taking avoidable casualties is not.

Exactly.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...

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.

I think you're purposely missing the point to be honest. Sure,it's not a benefit inside the game universe, it's a benefit in the sense that it's extra content to experience in the game. The point isn't so much that 'paragon's' get it, it's that 'Renegade's' don't have any sense of extra 'awesome' to counter-balance it. It doesn't (and shouldn't be) a carbon copy of the situation, it should be something that made their decision meaningful in context. 

Even if the choice meant that some former pro-Council people harrass Shephard for his/her actions in deciding to kill off the Council, it still makes that choice meaningful in context. The Council talking to you (even Councillor Velarn taking the ****** out of you) is a 'reward' in the sense that it's a decision that you made in the past that affects your game in the 'present.'

That's all I'd like to see really, that the game doesn't make me feel that I made the wrong or right decision, whether by rewarding me with 'extra' content or not, or by 'rewarding' me with [b]everyone[/i] agreeing with me or disagreeing.

[78stonewobble]

I agree with tjzsf and Mr.Gogeta34.

One thing that kinda annoys me is that you get paragon/renegade points for "just" a conversation. Who cares if I threaten or convince someone to do the right thing?...

:S ... now I can't play non eloquent Shepard and I actually semi mean that.

My personal preference would be the following:

Major future alliance decisions should be "neutral". Evil geniuses can think too...

How to convince/blackmail/threaten people are either paragon or renegade and there should be different mini missions for each.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

Am not claiming magical combat precog or predicting every outcome. *Am* claiming that given the known facts, there is a better method, which is "save the DA". So yes, command decisions are made on incomplete data all the time. Am glad you agree with this. Don't see why you still claim that we need to wait until ME3 to determine how good of a decision it was.

Because we don't know all the results yet. It legitimately seemed like a good idea at the time, but does not mean it was. Possible negative outcomes range from the Council saved having been already indoctrinated to the battlefield results simply turning out to have been different than we predicted.

Betting on something with a 99% chance to win is a pretty safe bet, but the other 1% can still happen.

False. Shep is a naval officer (rank of Commander, which is O-5 - naval equivalent of Lt. Colonel), which is why he was the XO on the Normandy back when Anderson was still the Captain. Thus, he should have the sense to ask more information and know that the Alliance ships would have plowed through those geth like Wrex on a bunch of salarians. And the two situations do not seem equally advantageous, given a little more in-depth thought.

When exactly did Shepard receive this training? He was a groundling before being promoted to command of the Normandy with no time for any training in between. The Alliance seems very strange in that way. Note that it is not a given that Alliance ranks equate to any current ranking system.

Not so - you are taking one particular style of renegade and applying it to all renegades. Again.
Renegades are mission first. *resolving* everyone's personal problems so they all have the best chance of fulfilling the mission is perfectly consistent with that ideology. Your team is not a standing army of hundreds, it is a specialist task force comprised of at most 12 people. It's a relatively simple matter to solve all their problems before tackling the suicide mission. Whether you need everyone's "loyalty" (really "focus") to survive is irrelevant - if you are roleplaying instead of metagaming, RenShep would still be out to maximize his squad's chances of success, and that means doing the loyalty missions. Taking casualties is acceptable. Taking avoidable casualties is not.

Based on that, there are lots of things that would have improved the mission odds more, including hiring additional ships and/or some sort of hit and run against the collector cruiser to test their defenses.

But there is no bloody way any RL military would put up with those loyalty missions, with the possible exceptions of Tali's (since there was a dipomatic aspect) and Jacob's (since there was a distress call).

You only know they will avoid casualties because of spoilers. RL soldiers carry on heroicly all the time, despite being away from loved ones for long periods of time, related relationship problems, and seeing their buddies blown all to hell.

I mean the various decisions I have brought up to demonstrate how the paragon choice makes more sense than the renegade ones. Your responses to them ahve generally been "you can't judge which is
a better decision until ME3 tells you what the end result is", which implying that the "better" decision is only determinable by metagaming.

Example: freeing the rachni. I can claim that this is a better idea because the Reapers are against all organic life, so freeing the rachni gives you an additional ally against them. You don't have to worry about them turning on you because it benefits the rachni more to fight the Reapers with you than it does to fight you and the Reapers at the same time. But by your rationale, you can only tell whether this was a better idea once we know what the rachni do in ME3. The same applies to all the other decisions - and this is flawed for the following reason:

Or it might not give an extra ally against them. The Rachni still could show up and promptly be indoctrinated. If you think it is guaranteed as an absolute certainty they will be an ally based soley on information in ME1, I have some stock to sell you.

Suppose there is a company's stock you can invest in. There is a 99% chance it will give you truckloads of return, and a 1% chance the company will go under and you will lose truckloads. At the current point in time, with no other data available to you, investing in the company is the better idea even if the company later goes under, because you could not have known that at the time. Similarly, I have made no predictions for ME3 - only that certain decisions are better decisions regardless of how they turn out in ME3.

Congrats on using the example I opened my reply with. 99% does not equal 100%. Making the investment is the best decision you can make at the time but that doesn't guarantee it is the right one. In the case of the Rachni, I pretty much always let them live, but I don't pretend that I know for a fact it is the right decision. I am just believe it is and am willing to take more risks with the Reapers coming.

I think I understand your point somewhat better now, but not everyone weights evidence equally. As a result, different people end up concluding different things are 'sure things.' Odds can never be known for certain in advance, only estimated. After the fact, they are all either 100% or 0, but not always as we predict.

We make decisions as best we can based on what we know at the time, but when we are wrong, it is disingenuous to rant at reality for betraying us and dangerous to get too sure of ourselves. Maybe you are infallible and never ever choose badly or misread a situation, but I am a mere mortal and don't claim any such uncanny talent.

At the very least, I didn't predict that Joker would be unable to find the SR1's gas pedal or that Shepard would be railroaded into working directly with Cerberus, in part by his own stupidity. Did you?

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

I think you're purposely missing the point to be honest. Sure,it's not a benefit inside the game universe, it's a benefit in the sense that it's extra content to experience in the game. The point isn't so much that 'paragon's' get it, it's that 'Renegade's' don't have any sense of extra 'awesome' to counter-balance it. It doesn't (and shouldn't be) a carbon copy of the situation, it should be something that made their decision meaningful in context. 

Even if the choice meant that some former pro-Council people harrass Shephard for his/her actions in deciding to kill off the Council, it still makes that choice meaningful in context. The Council talking to you (even Councillor Velarn taking the ****** out of you) is a 'reward' in the sense that it's a decision that you made in the past that affects your game in the 'present.'

That's all I'd like to see really, that the game doesn't make me feel that I made the wrong or right decision, whether by rewarding me with 'extra' content or not, or by 'rewarding' me with [b]everyone[/i] agreeing with me or disagreeing.

Ok, so if I don't find being insulted by the Council 'awesome', then what? If you think seeing the Councellors in that context is awesome, I'll happily volunteer to insult and berate you.

Personally I think Anderson telling you that he can reinstate you as a Spectre and if the other Councellors don't like it there isn't much they can do about it (renegade/dead council result) is a lot more awesome than 'we think you are a traitor but will reinstate you sort of, now go far far away please,' but individual milage may vary.

The game is affected either way. If the Council is dead, instead of seeing them you get Anderson telling you how because of your popularity he can walk all over them regarding your status. He can't do anything more about the Reapers because he can't push it as far as ordering the other race's fleets to deploy but that otherwise you are immensely popular.

Really, to me those complaining seem to be complaining they didn't get everything the paragons got while ignoring what they do get.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Taking casualties is acceptable. Taking avoidable casualties is not.

Exactly.

In that case, Shepard should have stayed at home after getting the IFF. Let Cerberus or someone else send troops in. His team would be guaranteed no casualties and appearantly the job can still get done (as evidenced by the Cerberus fleet heading towards the base if Shepard dies).

Better yet, the Normandy should have just engaged the Collector ship while it was playing possum. It would have been dead, no casualties on our side. Its shields were down and it was a sitting duck. There would have been plenty of time to get the IFF from another source (which happened anyway) later, and there would have been no ship outside the collector base.

The only way you know the loyalty missions prevent casualties is metagaming. We don't even know that they did prevent casulaties. The Collectors could have easily hit several colonies while Shepard was galavanting around making his crew happy.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
Ok, so if I don't find being insulted by the Council 'awesome', then what? If you think seeing the Councellors in that context is awesome, I'll happily volunteer to insult and berate you.

Moi, have you noticed that many people are now agreeing with us than with you? Why is it that you aren't 'getting' it? It's about not being treated as the red-headed step child.

Moi wrote...
Personally I think Anderson telling you that he can reinstate you as a Spectre and if the other Councellors don't like it there isn't much they can do about it (renegade/dead council result) is a lot more awesome than 'we think you are a traitor but will reinstate you sort of, now go far far away please,' but individual milage may vary.

I agree. The point being though is that there is a [ifuss[/i] being made over it. The me universe feels more real with many people being in it (and while Renegade's do take their fair share out, it shouldn't be as if the universe falls into a vacuum because of it). Honestly, I'm okay with people hating my Shephard because of the decisions that I made, but to have it ignored (in comparison) is kinda, well... insulting?

Moi wrote...
Really, to me those complaining seem to be complaining they didn't get everything the paragons got while ignoring what they do get.

Just as well you aren't the one actually making the game then honestly. I get why (some) Renegade's can't have some eerie Asari woman telling me the Rachni are ready to assist me when I need it because well, there are no Rachni left, but what I don't understand is why something else couldn't be placed at that spot instead to reflect my choices as a Renegade.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

In that case, Shepard should have stayed at home after getting the IFF. Let Cerberus or someone else send troops in. His team would be guaranteed no casualties and appearantly the job can still get done (as evidenced by the Cerberus fleet heading towards the base if Shepard dies).

Better yet, the Normandy should have just engaged the Collector ship while it was playing possum. It would have been dead, no casualties on our side. Its shields were down and it was a sitting duck. There would have been plenty of time to get the IFF from another source (which happened anyway) later, and there would have been no ship outside the collector base.

The only way you know the loyalty missions prevent casualties is metagaming. We don't even know that they did prevent casulaties. The Collectors could have easily hit several colonies while Shepard was galavanting around making his crew happy.

Not a Paragon/Renegade choice.... consequently irrelevant.

As far as loyalty missions go, outside of TIM's convenient luck on Horizon, there's been no way to pre-empt Collector attacks.  Hitting them where they lived was the percieved smartest option given that fact.  Cerberus was the only resource Shepard had in finding a way there and TIM wasn't sharing.  So you had no choice but to wait until they were able to find a way (or send you to a place where more information could be gathered).  In the meantime, ensuring your team is ready for the mission to come is a good idea...

[Moiaussi]

Arijharn wrote...

Moi, have you noticed that many people are now agreeing with us than with you? Why is it that you aren't 'getting' it? It's about not being treated as the red-headed step child.

That doesn't mean you are right. It could easily just that others have given up trying to convince you all.

I agree. The point being though is that there is a [ifuss[/i] being made over it. The me universe feels more real with many people being in it (and while Renegade's do take their fair share out, it shouldn't be as if the universe falls into a vacuum because of it). Honestly, I'm okay with people hating my Shephard because of the decisions that I made, but to have it ignored (in comparison) is kinda, well... insulting?

If you kill people, there are fewer people in the universe. I am not sure what you are trying to say here, that the universe owes you equal attention regardless of circumstances? If you kill someone you should have a gratuitous alternate encounter 'just cause?'

Just as well you aren't the one actually making the game then honestly. I get why (some) Renegade's can't have some eerie Asari woman telling me the Rachni are ready to assist me when I need it because well, there are no Rachni left, but what I don't understand is why something else couldn't be placed at that spot instead to reflect my choices as a Renegade.

If I was writing this I would have done a lot of things differently. ME2 would certainly have been a lot different. As far as this particular topic though, I would have had asymetric equality, which may yet happen.

My main complaint about ME2 is that the ME1 decisions really didn't seem to matter at all. The Rachni decision is the only one that might matter, and we still don't know the result for certain. ME2 decisions are even less certain, since ME3 isn't even finished yet.

I can understand concern, but I can't understand people saying decisions are de facto one way or another when we really don't know yet other than minor cosmetic encounters.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Not a Paragon/Renegade choice.... consequently irrelevant.

As far as loyalty missions go, outside of TIM's convenient luck on Horizon, there's been no way to pre-empt Collector attacks.  Hitting them where they lived was the percieved smartest option given that fact.  Cerberus was the only resource Shepard had in finding a way there and TIM wasn't sharing.  So you had no choice but to wait until they were able to find a way (or send you to a place where more information could be gathered).  In the meantime, ensuring your team is ready for the mission to come is a good idea...

Noone even tried simply blowing up the collector ship. TIM didn't even want you to try (which is why I think he was already showing signs of indoctrination).

My point is that there are much bigger flaws in ME2 than not seeing the replacement Counci, if that is a flaw at all.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Actually, the one thing we're lacking against the Reapers is intel and suffient rival technology. The Base is a resource... of course TIM wouldn't want to blow it up.

The flaw is that the Paragon decisions have been the most supported choice. They've also been the most favored choices... and I've read (for a flaw example) countless times on here how unrealistic the "Keep the Base" squad responses are.


EDIT:  WIth regards to the Ship... the stationary guns were reactivated and fired on the Collector vessel as it left Horizon.  The next time you see it, you're bording it and it turns out to be an ambush.  Outside of fighting for their lives, they don't have bring any explosives with them (it was a salvaging and fact-finding mission).  Considering the last time those the vessel and Normandy met, escaping was a good idea once the ambush sprung.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 11 juin 2011 - 07:08 .

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Actually, the one thing we're lacking against the Reapers is intel and suffient rival technology. The Base is a resource... of course TIM wouldn't want to blow it up.

The flaw is that the Paragon decisions have been the most supported choice. They've also been the most favored choices... and I've read (for a flaw example) countless times on here how unrealistic the "Keep the Base" squad responses are.

Yeah, you have a character like Mordin saying "KEEP IT KEEP IT!!!!" while the decision is being made and then when back in the Normandy he says "I wouldn't have given it over to Cerberus" and i'm sitting there thinking to myself "You were in a Cerberus operation all this time, who the hell else did you think was going to get it dummy?". The whole thing makes Mordin look like a moron.

[tjzsf]

[quote]Moiaussi wrote...
In that case, Shepard should have stayed at home after getting the IFF. Let Cerberus or someone else send troops in. His team would be guaranteed no casualties and appearantly the job can still get done (as evidenced by the Cerberus fleet heading towards the base if Shepard dies).
[/quote]
IIRC the point of that was so you and your team can do a surgical strike on the Collector base. Which is why you're gathering a *team* of badass individuals, as opposed to recruiting a private army.

[quote]
Better yet, the Normandy should have just engaged the Collector ship while it was playing possum. It would have been dead, no casualties on our side. Its shields were down and it was a sitting duck. There would have been plenty of time to get the IFF from another source (which happened anyway) later, and there would have been no ship outside the collector base.
[/quote]
Hmm. Maybe it should. Then again, the point of that mission was to learn and find stuff from the Collector ship, so blowing up your one free source of intel on an enemy you up to then know nothing about isn't the brightest idea anyone's ever had. You also don't know that there was time to get the IFF - it's after that mission that we discover each Collector ship has a Reaper IFF.

The only way you know the loyalty missions prevent casualties is metagaming. We don't even know that they did prevent casulaties. The Collectors could have easily hit several colonies while Shepard was galavanting around making his crew happy.
[/quote]
Utterly false. Loyalty Missions improve morale which improve the chances of success. Basic Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. As for Collectors having hit several colonies while Shep was doing the LMs, that's the point - do you, Commander Shepard, rush for the Collectors as soon as a new development occurs? Or do you bide your time and sacrifice a few more colonies for improved unit morale and cohesion? The latter is justifiable in-verse - It's not like you're on that tight of a schedule anyway; after the Collector ship, you know that the Collectors have to hit Earth to collect enough humans for the rest of their plan, so you do have all the time in the world to gallivant around making your crew happy. Not that it even takes that long - Mass Relay travel is near-instantaneous anyway.

[tjzsf]

Moiaussi wrote...

Because we don't know all the results yet. It legitimately seemed like a good idea at the time, but does not mean it was. Possible negative outcomes range from the Council saved having been already indoctrinated to the battlefield results simply turning out to have been different than we predicted.

Betting on something with a 99% chance to win is a pretty safe bet, but the other 1% can still happen.

Again. Future knowledge not necessary to determine whether a decision was "good." Your possible negative outcomes are complete wild mass guessing and not anything extrapolatable by given facts.

When exactly did Shepard receive this training? He was a groundling before being promoted to command of the Normandy with no time for any training in between. The Alliance seems very strange in that way. Note that it is not a given that Alliance ranks equate to any current ranking system.

False. Again, Shep is not a groundling. Shep has a Navy officer rank (Commander) and was the XO of the Normandy before being promoted to command. If you wish to claim groundlinghood on Shep's part, it is insufficient to merely claim "Alliance ranks don't necessarily equate to current ranks", you have to actually state the part where it says "Shep is a groundling."

Based on that, there are lots of things that would have improved the mission odds more, including hiring additional ships and/or some sort of hit and run against the collector cruiser to test their defenses.

Good idea. If given the means in-game, my Shep would have done that too.

But there is no bloody way any RL military would put up with those loyalty missions, with the possible exceptions of Tali's (since there was a dipomatic aspect) and Jacob's (since there was a distress call).

Good thing we're not RL military. Also, specialist teams (Delta, for example) have more leeway on that kind of thing anyway. Also also, there is no hurry - you know that the Collectors can't possibly get all the humans they need after the Collector Ship mission for a while, so you might as well get everyone's emotional baggage out of the way. It's not a matter of "not putting up with it", it's a matter of "i can resolve this. why the hell aren't I resolving it."

You only know they will avoid casualties because of spoilers. RL soldiers carry on heroicly all the time, despite being away from loved ones for long periods of time, related relationship problems, and seeing their buddies blown all to hell.

Bollocks as explained in the other post. Completing loyalty mission = +morale = +chance of success. Just because a lot of RL soldiers carry on all the time, doesn't mean my individual soldiers will. 1-size-fits-all management works decent with company+ units, doesn't work so well with specialist teams.

Or it might not give an extra ally against them. The Rachni still could show up and promptly be indoctrinated. If you think it is guaranteed as an absolute certainty they will be an ally based soley on information in ME1, I have some stock to sell you.

Suppose there is a company's stock you can invest in. There is a 99% chance it will give you truckloads of return, and a 1% chance the company will go under and you will lose truckloads. At the current point in time, with no other data available to you, investing in the company is the better idea even if the company later goes under, because you could not have known that at the time. Similarly, I have made no predictions for ME3 - only that certain decisions are better decisions regardless of how they turn out in ME3.

Congrats on using the example I opened my reply with. 99% does not equal 100%. Making the investment is the best decision you can make at the time but that doesn't guarantee it is the right one. In the case of the Rachni, I pretty much always let them live, but I don't pretend that I know for a fact it is the right decision. I am just believe it is and am willing to take more risks with the Reapers coming.

The example you opened up with supports *my* argument. The end result is *completely irrelevant* to whether something is a "good decision". That is only determined by what is known at the time. "Wait until ME3" is, frankly, an intellectually lazy way of looking at the issue, which is that the reasonability balance is skewed heavily in favor of being paragon in everything. Taking rachni again. Maybe letting them live wasn't the right decision. But it still is the better one. You can justify letting them live using basic game theory and incentives. You can justify killing them by....a grasp at the "they might be a threat later on" which is easily countered by "but they have full incentive to help you against the Reapers, and if they're a threat later that means you survived the Reapers."

I think I understand your point somewhat better now, but not everyone weights evidence equally. As a result, different people end up concluding different things are 'sure things.' Odds can never be known for certain in advance, only estimated. After the fact, they are all either 100% or 0, but not always as we predict.

We make decisions as best we can based on what we know at the time, but when we are wrong, it is disingenuous to rant at reality for betraying us and dangerous to get too sure of ourselves. Maybe you are infallible and never ever choose badly or misread a situation, but I am a mere mortal and don't claim any such uncanny talent.

At the very least, I didn't predict that Joker would be unable to find the SR1's gas pedal or that Shepard would be railroaded into working directly with Cerberus, in part by his own stupidity. Did you?

And we go full circle.

It doesn't matter that after the fact, they are all 100% or 0. All that matters is that before the fact, they are not 50/50. In most of the major decisions, they are weighed more heavily in favor of the paragon method of resolution. On the whole, the ratio is more akin to 95/5 in favor of paragon, because only with Balak could you actually make a reasonable case in favor of killing him. No one is ranting at reality; they are ranting at the fact that Bioware made it so that most renegade decisions lead to worse results than paragon ones.

tl;dr: the end results of a decision are irrelevant to whether the decision was a good one. The only things that matter are what you know at the time. Running a cost/benefit analysis on the major story-changing decisions results in a pattern that is skewed heavily in favor of paragon decisions having better outcomes. Perhaps not a 100% chance, but even a 51% chance is worth going for assuming no other alternatives

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

IIRC the point of that was so you and your team can do a surgical strike on the Collector base. Which is why you're gathering a *team* of badass individuals, as opposed to recruiting a private army.

1) getting the IFF was no cakewalk.
2) I was responding to the suggestion that avoidable casualties should always be avoided. You are playing fast and lose with the term 'avoidable.' In RL, if you coddle troops that much they are less likely to take the actual mission seriously and you might even have more casualties.

Hmm. Maybe it should. Then again, the point of that mission was to learn and find stuff from the Collector ship, so blowing up your one free source of intel on an enemy you up to then know nothing about isn't the brightest idea anyone's ever had. You also don't know that there was time to get the IFF - it's after that mission that we discover each Collector ship has a Reaper IFF.

But you don't get the IFF from there. You get it from the reaper derelict that neither TIM nor EDI felt important enough to tell you about. That there is an IFF or equivalent on each ship is common sense. Besides, you were talking about avoidable casualties.

Utterly false. Loyalty Missions improve morale which improve the chances of success. Basic Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. As for Collectors having hit several colonies while Shep was doing the LMs, that's the point - do you, Commander Shepard, rush for the Collectors as soon as a new development occurs? Or do you bide your time and sacrifice a few more colonies for improved unit morale and cohesion? The latter is justifiable in-verse - It's not like you're on that tight of a schedule anyway; after the Collector ship, you know that the Collectors have to hit Earth to collect enough humans for the rest of their plan, so you do have all the time in the world to gallivant around making your crew happy. Not that it even takes that long - Mass Relay travel is near-instantaneous anyway.

So you feel that compassionate leaves should always be granted just because the soldier asks, regardless of situation or mission, and that the main mission should always be diverted just because a soldier thinks something about their personal life is more important at the time? Just because the Collectors might be planning to hit Earth (which is pure speculation based solely on the capacity of the Collector ship) doesn't mean they have stopped hitting colonies. You don't know yet what they are gathering people for. They could have been a lot closer to finishing a Reaper than they were. Again, you only know you have time due to metagaming. You only know that the loyalty missions themselves will have no casualties due to metagaming.

And travel is not near-instantaneous. You still have to fly to and from the relays.

[Moiaussi]

tjzsf wrote...

Again. Future knowledge not necessary to determine whether a decision was "good." Your possible negative outcomes are complete wild mass guessing and not anything extrapolatable by given facts.

So you would like to buy some stock then? It is a sure thing, honest.

False. Again, Shep is not a groundling. Shep has a Navy officer rank (Commander) and was the XO of the Normandy before being promoted to command. If you wish to claim groundlinghood on Shep's part, it is insufficient to merely claim "Alliance ranks don't necessarily equate to current ranks", you have to actually state the part where it says "Shep is a groundling."

How about the part where Shepard held off ground troops on Elysium or escaped Thresher Maws on Akuze, or ruthless on the surface of Torfan depending on origin, and the complete lack of any mention of any naval posting or training whatsoever before the Normandy? As for being XO of the Normandy, it is a brand new ship, and Shepard's mission (his first mission) is to lead a ground team to oversee the recovery of the Prothean artifact. An XO would normally be coordinating that from on board ship. The Normandy has a marine contingent for such duties, of which Jenkins is one.

Good thing we're not RL military. Also, specialist teams (Delta, for example) have more leeway on that kind of thing anyway. Also also, there is no hurry - you know that the Collectors can't possibly get all the humans they need after the Collector Ship mission for a while, so you might as well get everyone's emotional baggage out of the way. It's not a matter of "not putting up with it", it's a matter of "i can resolve this. why the hell aren't I resolving it."

So you are arguing that your version of renegades is to take a less realistic approach? Without metagaming, you don't know in advance how many humans the Collectors need. Their ship is older than human civilization so it wasn't built for whatever they are up to now and we don't yet know what they are up to now anyway.

Bollocks as explained in the other post. Completing loyalty mission = +morale = +chance of success. Just because a lot of RL soldiers carry on all the time, doesn't mean my individual soldiers will. 1-size-fits-all management works decent with company+ units, doesn't work so well with specialist teams.

Completing loyalty missions = soft coddled crew and unneccessary risk. You only know the missions are risk free because of metagaming.

[The example you opened up with supports *my* argument. The end result is *completely irrelevant* to whether something is a "good decision". That is only determined by what is known at the time. "Wait until ME3" is, frankly, an intellectually lazy way of looking at the issue, which is that the reasonability balance is skewed heavily in favor of being paragon in everything. Taking rachni again. Maybe letting them live wasn't the right decision. But it still is the better one. You can justify letting them live using basic game theory and incentives. You can justify killing them by....a grasp at the "they might be a threat later on" which is easily countered by "but they have full incentive to help you against the Reapers, and if they're a threat later that means you survived the Reapers."

You are assuming though that it is 99%/1% and that your assessment wasn't based on false value judgements somewhere. Moreover, you are insisting the outcome will turn out a certain way and that paragon decisions are all logicly the right ones, despite other renegades arguing that they seemed like foolish decisions to them and that at least some key renegade decisions should turn out better.

And we go full circle.

It doesn't matter that after the fact, they are all 100% or 0. All that matters is that before the fact, they are not 50/50. In most of the major decisions, they are weighed more heavily in favor of the paragon method of resolution. On the whole, the ratio is more akin to 95/5 in favor of paragon, because only with Balak could you actually make a reasonable case in favor of killing him. No one is ranting at reality; they are ranting at the fact that Bioware made it so that most renegade decisions lead to worse results than paragon ones.

tl;dr: the end results of a decision are irrelevant to whether the decision was a good one. The only things that matter are what you know at the time. Running a cost/benefit analysis on the major story-changing decisions results in a pattern that is skewed heavily in favor of paragon decisions having better outcomes. Perhaps not a 100% chance, but even a 51% chance is worth going for assuming no other alternatives

But that not 50/50 is merely an assumption you are making on insufficient data. You are assuming that your own assessments are 100%. Without spoilers, did you predict that Shepard would be gratuitously kllled at the start of ME2 and that the Council would suddenly stop believing in Reapers and that we would all be working for Cerberus whether we wanted to or not?

Be honest now.

[Moiaussi]

Seboist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Actually, the one thing we're lacking against the Reapers is intel and suffient rival technology. The Base is a resource... of course TIM wouldn't want to blow it up.

The flaw is that the Paragon decisions have been the most supported choice. They've also been the most favored choices... and I've read (for a flaw example) countless times on here how unrealistic the "Keep the Base" squad responses are.

Yeah, you have a character like Mordin saying "KEEP IT KEEP IT!!!!" while the decision is being made and then when back in the Normandy he says "I wouldn't have given it over to Cerberus" and i'm sitting there thinking to myself "You were in a Cerberus operation all this time, who the hell else did you think was going to get it dummy?". The whole thing makes Mordin look like a moron.

This I agee with completely. I think the crew needed to be sent to Chakwas after that to check for whiplash after such an abrupt about face. Or at least sent for psych testing....

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

EDIT:  WIth regards to the Ship... the stationary guns were reactivated and fired on the Collector vessel as it left Horizon.  The next time you see it, you're bording it and it turns out to be an ambush.  Outside of fighting for their lives, they don't have bring any explosives with them (it was a salvaging and fact-finding mission).  Considering the last time those the vessel and Normandy met, escaping was a good idea once the ambush sprung.

Actually the guns open up while it is still on the ground, driving it off. The Normandy could have opened fire as it was still taking hits.

And in the initial encounter when the Normandy was shot down, it wasn't head to head, the Normandy didn't get a shot in, and was the SR1, which is a smaller ship. Also the Collector's sheilds were up, whereas while it is playing possum the Normandy would have been hitting the hull directly. If they had come up from behind, they could have targetted the engines directly and the Collectors would have been the ones out of position.

If they really felt the SR2 couldn't handle the Collector cruiser in a fight, why were they even trying to hit the base before they could? Shouldn't they have disengaged as soon as it was taking off from the base? They knew now what was there and could have come back with reinforcements.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...
Actually the guns open up while it is still on the ground, driving it off. The Normandy could have opened fire as it was still taking hits.

And in the initial encounter when the Normandy was shot down, it wasn't head to head, the Normandy didn't get a shot in, and was the SR1, which is a smaller ship. Also the Collector's sheilds were up, whereas while it is playing possum the Normandy would have been hitting the hull directly. If they had come up from behind, they could have targetted the engines directly and the Collectors would have been the ones out of position.

If they really felt the SR2 couldn't handle the Collector cruiser in a fight, why were they even trying to hit the base before they could? Shouldn't they have disengaged as soon as it was taking off from the base? They knew now what was there and could have come back with reinforcements.

The Normandy was likely not equipped to land on Horizon (or go past orbit) and attack the Collector ship.  That's why some planets require you to take a shuttle.

While the Collector vessel was playing possum, the goal was to find out how to get to their homeworld... destroying 1 ship (and their only chance to find out more about the Collectors) was not worth being unable to get to their 'homeworld.' 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

Actually, the one thing we're lacking against the Reapers is intel and suffient rival technology. The Base is a resource... of course TIM wouldn't want to blow it up.

The flaw is that the Paragon decisions have been the most supported choice. They've also been the most favored choices... and I've read (for a flaw example) countless times on here how unrealistic the "Keep the Base" squad responses are.

Yeah, you have a character like Mordin saying "KEEP IT KEEP IT!!!!" while the decision is being made and then when back in the Normandy he says "I wouldn't have given it over to Cerberus" and i'm sitting there thinking to myself "You were in a Cerberus operation all this time, who the hell else did you think was going to get it dummy?". The whole thing makes Mordin look like a moron.

This I agee with completely. I think the crew needed to be sent to Chakwas after that to check for whiplash after such an abrupt about face. Or at least sent for psych testing....

And this 'abrupt about face' didn't hurt Paragons at all did it?  So which choice ended up being favored over the other?