380 réponses à ce sujet

[Dane Seagal]

Isn't it a better idea to talk about the paragon/renegade system in general, rather than the end-game choice of ME1? The conversation seems to be going nowhere.

[Moiaussi]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

You're right, there is no 'get away' scenario.  But you are still incorrect about the notion of stopping Sovereign in time.  If you don't do it in time... it's over..

And some sort of arguement over the semantics of 'stopping' vs 'defeating' relates to that how, exactly?

We don't "know" if the Ascension can be saved or the Geth can be stopped either.  What we do know is that if we don't stop Sovereign in time... it's over. 

Whether the Ascension can be saved or not might matter if my goal in having the fleet try was to save the Ascension. It is not. The goal is to take out the Geth ships that will be freed up to target the Alliance fleet otherwise. The goal isn't to defeat the entire Geth fleet either, since there is no evidence that they are at risk of becoming an imminent threat to the mission of stopping Sovereign.

If the Alliance doesn't have the firepower to defeat the ships taking down the Ascension it is unlikely they have the strength to take down Sovereign and the decision becomes moot. If the Geth reduce Alliance firepower too fast, they will be not be able to stop Sovereign in time ™.
 

Agreed... and that goes the same for Renegades... but that still doesn't change the fact that if Sovereign is not stopped in time... it's over.  It doesn't matter what Shepard's 'reasoning' is for delaying or focusing on Sovereign.

If the motivation doesn't matter, why did you keep misrepresenting mine rather than just reply in the terms I was discussing?

Saren:  "You've lost, you know that don't you"

In chess... that's what we usually refer to as a claiming a "checkmate."

Again, the lack of chess knowledge. Saren thought that checkmate was imminent. Shepard explains his next move to Saren and Saren realizes "Oh, it isn't checkmate after all." It was the equivalent of the following chess conversation:

Observer: Checkmate in 6 moves, you should concede.
Player: Hardly, watch this (moves a piece in a way the observer didn't anticipate).
Observer: Oh! Carrry on then....

In this case the observer even had a gun to his head (indoctrination) convincing him to tell Shepard that he was doomed. Sovereign had said essentally the same on Vermire "We are beyond your comprehension, you are all doooooooooooomed, give up now!"

Again, it doesn't matter how easily Sovereign goes down... if Sovereign is not stopped from regaining control of the station in time... it's over.

So then Shepard should be fine taking on Sovereign in hand to hand while Sovereign is still in ship form, since there is no correlation between how hard it is to take Sovereign down and being able to take Sovy down in time? I guess he didn't even need Vigil's program since that made it easier.

Fact is that the option presented in the game that wants to save "additional ships" ... is the choice to not send your fleet in to battle against the Geth and save an already defeated ship.

The interpretation of a choice by a groundling.

Tali:  "Human casualties will be very high if you send your fleet in now..."

This is the same Tali who twice loses everyone under her command in ME2 other than one soldier who may live if Shepard bails him out. She didn't know the battlefield nor the Alliance fleet strength.

Now against the entire Reaper armada... no... the citadel fleet would be destroyed.  How do we know?  Because they practically were destroyed by the effect of just 1 Reaper.

Actually Sovereign personally fired on very few ships. Most of the losses at the Citadel were to Geth. Sovereign wasn't even bothering to fire on the way in. Other than the one cruiser which was rammed, we don't know of any Council ships destroyed by Sovereign. Once Sovereign is defeated, we can expect at least some opportunity to learn from captured equipment and tech and ships can be refitted.

Whether you "do" or "don't" have to be in checkmate is irrelevant because you're not in checkmate.  You're in check.   In checkmate, there are no other options but to lose.  Now to more specifically address your point...  Someone can "call" checkmate within a few moves... but it's not checkmate until that checkmate move is played.

And again, compared to the entire galaxy's ships, the amount at the Citadel isn't that much... the Reapers have always wiped out the Citadel fleet... each time they've done this cycle (they've likely designed it that way).  Vigil's suggestion for beating the Reapers is using the entire galaxy's force... which is way more impressive than just the ships hanging around the Citadel.

Check means you have to move the king. or otherwise eliminate the threat to the king causing the check within the next move. There is no option to move a piece anywhere else. The king was in check. Vigil's program eliminated the check, but checkmate is still possible within a few turns if we are not careful. We can deal with it recklessly and make it harder to win later, or we can take an extra move to improve our overall odds.

The Citadel fleet is the Council's signature fleet. We don't know how much of the entire fleet was deployed there. We don't know exactly how many ships will be needed later. 

More importantly, we don't even know how many ships will be needed now.

We are just going in circles with this. Perhaps we should just call this a stalemate?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Moiaussi wrote...

And some sort of arguement over the semantics of 'stopping' vs 'defeating' relates to that how, exactly?

Please read this carefully so I don't have to repeat it... If you do not defeat Sovereign before he brings the Reapers there... it's over.  If you do defeat Sovereign before the Reapers are are brought over... you stopped him from summoning them.

That is not semantics... they are two very different outcomes.

Now here's a point that needs even closer attention:  If Sovereign is prevented from summoning the Reapers (permanently) but not destroyed yet... they stopped him without defeating him.

There's really nothing else to talk about regarding this point... if you make a new comment read this and see if it doesn't address your point.

Whether the Ascension can be saved or not might matter if my goal in having the fleet try was to save the Ascension. It is not. The goal is to take out the Geth ships that will be freed up to target the Alliance fleet otherwise. The goal isn't to defeat the entire Geth fleet either, since there is no evidence that they are at risk of becoming an imminent threat to the mission of stopping Sovereign.

If the Alliance doesn't have the firepower to defeat the ships taking down the Ascension it is unlikely they have the strength to take down Sovereign and the decision becomes moot. If the Geth reduce Alliance firepower too fast, they will be not be able to stop Sovereign in time ™.

It still doesn't matter... you can't "improvise" running out of time.  You can improvise a few geth showing up while you're attacking sovereign.
 

If the motivation doesn't matter, why did you keep misrepresenting mine rather than just reply in the terms I was discussing?

Because it's not a misrepresentation and it frankly baffles me that you don't see it.  If you decided to take the time to remove Geth ships... that's a fine motivation.  But to do that you cannot go after Sovereign until you're done... that's the only point being made here... what are you even arguing about now?

Again, the lack of chess knowledge. Saren thought that checkmate was imminent. Shepard explains his next move to Saren and Saren realizes "Oh, it isn't checkmate after all." It was the equivalent of the following chess conversation:

Observer: Checkmate in 6 moves, you should concede.
Player: Hardly, watch this (moves a piece in a way the observer didn't anticipate).
Observer: Oh! Carrry on then....

In this case the observer even had a gun to his head (indoctrination) convincing him to tell Shepard that he was doomed. Sovereign had said essentally the same on Vermire "We are beyond your comprehension, you are all doooooooooooomed, give up now!"

It's your lack of memory, not my lack of chess knowledge... here's what I said:

"I know chess better than you think.  Consider this, while checkmate was being threatened, it wasn't actually there... it was just check.  Same rules apply.  The Citadel was not out of danger, it just wasn't "over."  IE:  Sovereign did not have the galaxy/Citadel at checkmate... just "check."  I'm hoping you can connect the dots on the rest of your scenario... given this fact."

We're done with this point... because now we've said the same thing.  Saren threatened checkmate... but it wasn't there.  The galaxy was just in check... like I said.  Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

So then Shepard should be fine taking on Sovereign in hand to hand while Sovereign is still in ship form, since there is no correlation between how hard it is to take Sovereign down and being able to take Sovy down in time? I guess he didn't even need Vigil's program since that made it easier.

Again, taking Sovereign down is not the only way to prevent the station from being retaken... but the first thing worth trying.  It's time to wrap this up.

The interpretation of a choice by a groundling.

Excuse with no in-game counter... we're done with this point.  Not to mention that it turns out that she was right.

This is the same Tali who twice loses everyone under her command in ME2 other than one soldier who may live if Shepard bails him out. She didn't know the battlefield nor the Alliance fleet strength.

 
Sequel = irrelevant to the choice... but even then, she knows about losing.  Done with this point.

Actually Sovereign personally fired on very few ships. Most of the losses at the Citadel were to Geth. Sovereign wasn't even bothering to fire on the way in. Other than the one cruiser which was rammed, we don't know of any Council ships destroyed by Sovereign. Once Sovereign is defeated, we can expect at least some opportunity to learn from captured equipment and tech and ships can be refitted.

Nothing to argue about there.

Check means you have to move the king. or otherwise eliminate the threat to the king causing the check within the next move. There is no option to move a piece anywhere else. The king was in check. Vigil's program eliminated the check, but checkmate is still possible within a few turns if we are not careful. We can deal with it recklessly and make it harder to win later, or we can take an extra move to improve our overall odds.

The Citadel fleet is the Council's signature fleet. We don't know how much of the entire fleet was deployed there. We don't know exactly how many ships will be needed later. 

More importantly, we don't even know how many ships will be needed now.

We are just going in circles with this. Perhaps we should just call this a stalemate?

Vigil's program was temporary and Sovereign could regain control at any moment... that is far from "eliminating the check." 

The check is over when the danger is gone... a temporary block is not danger being gone... not even close.

It's always tricky to have someone win an arguement if they're not willing to stand corrected.

But truly, this arguement has been over ever since I presented the irrefutable evidence that the choice was made on a time table.. be it Paragon or Renegade (whether you want to believe this or not, it's in the game for all to see and can't be denied).  Reasoning for picking the choice may vary, but the time before Sovereign summons the Reapers is still the most dangerous and known issue of the time... and not going directly after Sovereign is taking a chance with this time table.

This has been a fun and interesting debate, but the facts speak for themselves.  I won't say I "won"... but the point has been proven.  Nice discussion Moiaussi... and if I need to clarify anything, I'll try to keep it even briefer until this is concluded.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 21 juin 2011 - 05:49 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I just love slamming my head into brick walls... concrete walls, stucco walls, any kind of wall.

lol

Dane Seagal wrote...

Isn't it a better idea to talk about the paragon/renegade system in general, rather than the end-game choice of ME1? The conversation seems to be going nowhere.

Hopefully the convo's about over now.  I think he's not so much arguing what I'm saying anymore as much as him feeling his choice is being insulted... when it isn't.

Right now he doesn't see the benefit of being Neo (from The Matrix) saving Morpheus (instead of sacrificing him...).  Sure it was a risk going there... but it paid off.  That's the Paragon path.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 21 juin 2011 - 06:03 .

[TheRevanchist]

Heavy risk....but the prrriiizzzeee.