82210 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Athayniel wrote...
Shiala is the *only* person shown thus far to have overcome the effects of indoctrination and that's only because she was taken by the Thorian.

Makes you wonder why Cerberus hasn't kidnapped that colony to study the residues of the spores yet.

[flemm]

Athayniel wrote...
You weigh the chance of maybe finding a technology that perhaps has the potential of being used against the Reapers against the certainty of anyone trying to study it falling under the sway of the very enemy you're trying to fight and for my Sheps at least it becomes a no-brainer.

I think that you can add that it's also weighing the certainty of destroying an important Reaper base and hitting them where it hurts (right in the reproduction "facility"... *ouch* ), against the possibility that the base might yield some type of intelligence breakthrough if indoctrination can be avoided and if the base can be defended for an extended period (against the Reapers, if nothing else).

Destroying the base has certain concrete benefits, whereas the benefits of keeping it are more theoretical, and there is a lot of risk. That said, beating the Reapers is going to take a borderline miracle and some huge risks. That's a given, because of their vastly superior tech. The characters know this. So, the potential benefit of keeping the base and taking the risk is... not easily dismissed.

In that sense, I think it's a pretty interesting choice and exactly the type of thing that should be in the game. I'd like to hear Miranda talk more about her thought-process, that is all.

Modifié par flemm, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:09 .

[Ieldra]

Athayniel wrote...

JosephDucreux wrote...
Problem with your reasoning is that all projects relating and pertaining to the Reapers have all backfired horribly. The derelict Reaper and Arrival, among many other projects, pretty much constitutes a 100% failure rate when it comes to studying/using their technology. Miranda knows that all too well, and she's too much of a realist to believe that the CB will go any different even with 20 light years of precautions.

This right here.  Glad I waited before trying to post after reading Ieldra's comment. One definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result. Miranda is not insane. After everything that is uncovered over the course of the games with respect to attempts to study Reaper technology and indoctrination, the two things we know so far is that there's no defense against indoctrination, and there's no way back except to be under the effects of an even stronger form of mind control. Shiala is the *only* person shown thus far to have overcome the effects of indoctrination and that's only because she was taken by the Thorian.

The thing is, you aren't repeating the same actions. Not that the game shows us any details, but you can bet that any team of scientists worth the name won't make the mistake of setting up camp in a derelict Reaper again, or assume any piece of Reaper technology is defunct.
And what do you propose as an alternative? Cease research? The thing is, it is extremely likely that we need to find a defense against indoctrination. As with every other research, future successes are built on past failures. In a case where contuing to fail may mean extinction, you go on to either die or succeed.

Regarding Shiala, well there's your proof that there's a way to protect yourself against indoctrination and even reverse it to some degree. If we knew how the Thorian managed that things would be quite a bit easier. Unfortunately it was destroyed....

You weigh the chance of maybe finding a technology that perhaps has the potential of being used against the Reapers against the certainty of anyone trying to study it falling under the sway of the very enemy you're trying to fight and for my Sheps at least it becomes a no-brainer. Not to mention I wouldn't trust Cerberus and The Illusive Man to do the right thing with the contents of a Scooby-Doo lunchbox let alone the Collector Base.

There is no such certainty, and inroads have indeed be made into understanding the process. The problem is lack of communication. We know from ME1 that indoctrination has a radiation component. We know from Retribution that it has a nanotechnological component. Chandana's research probably pre-dates Retribution, so we can't fault him for ignoring the latter.
It all depends on how important you think it is to understand indoctrination and other technologies the Reapers will use against the galaxy's species. Since the Reapers are currently practically invincible - you can't expect single Reapers against whole fleets to be a viable strategy  - I think it is very important.

As for Cerberus, it all comes down to the fact that Cerberus is the lesser evil. That they might not be exactly responsible with all that power is unfortunate, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for results. 
 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:14 .

[Athayniel]

flemm wrote...

In that sense, I think it's a pretty interesting choice and exactly the type of thing that should be in the game. I'd like to hear Miranda talk more about her thought-process, that is all.

Yes, but like I wrote earlier, Miranda doesn't strike me as the kind of person who shares her thought-processes. She just reveals her conclusions.

[flemm]

Athayniel wrote...

Yes, but like I wrote earlier, Miranda doesn't strike me as the kind of person who shares her thought-processes. She just reveals her conclusions.

Well, at the CB, yes, I agree. It's not the tiime for an extended conversation. It's between her and TIM, and what we are seeing is the end of the conversation, basically. The nuts and bolts have already been discussed.

In some other setting, I could see her elaborating further. Maybe in ME3. If not on the topic of the CB, then on her decision to cut ties with Cerberus/TIM. That at least, I think, is very likely.

Modifié par flemm, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:19 .

[Xilizhra]

but you can bet that any team of scientists worth the name won't make the mistake of setting up camp in a derelict Reaper again, or assume any piece of Reaper technology is defunct.

Arrival. It seems to be completely impossible for scientists to not handle Reaper technology stupidly, which honestly makes sense, if the indoctrination process starts quickly enough.

As for Cerberus, it all comes down to the fact that Cerberus is the lesser evil.

Apparently not.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Athayniel]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The thing is, you aren't repeating the same actions. Not that the game shows us any details, but you can bet that any team of scientists worth the name won't make the mistake of setting up camp in a derelict Reaper again, or assume any piece of Reaper technology is defunct.
And what do you propose as an alternative? Cease research? The thing is, it is extremely likely that we need to find a defense against indoctrination. As with every other research, future successes are built on past failures. In a case where contuing to fail may mean extinction, you go on to either die or succeed.

It is repeating the same actions. Studying Reaper technology under the threat of indoctrination. What have we learned so far? Indoctrination wins every time. It's like 'Joshua'. says, "The only way to win is not to play."

Regarding Shiala, well there's your proof that there's a way to protect yourself against indoctrination and even reverse it to some degree. If we knew how the Thorian managed that things would be quite a bit easier. Unfortunately it was destroyed....

Talk about the cure being worse than the disease... especially since those studying the Thorian and its spores had the exact same problem of falling under its sway.

There is no such certainty, and inroads have indeed be made into understanding the process. The problem is lack of communication. We know from ME1 that indoctrination has a radiation component. We know from Retribution that it has a nanotechnological component. Chandana's research probably pre-dates Retribution, so we can't fault him for ignoring the latter.
It all depends on how important you think it is to understand indoctrination and other technologies the Reapers will use against the galaxy's species. Since the Reapers are currently practically invincible - you can't expect single Reapers against whole fleets to be a viable strategy  - I think it is very important.

I think it's more important not to lose the galaxy's best scientific minds in the pursuit of something we have no way of knowing will be helpful in the end. Protection against indoctrination won't help when they blast the planet from orbit. You're fighting a symptom instead of the disease.

As for Cerberus, it all comes down to the fact that Cerberus is the lesser evil. That they might not be exactly responsible with all that power is unfortunate, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for results. 

Hand the most advanced technological base known to any species to an organisation whose leader admits to wanting to conquer the rest of the galaxy? Ummm... no. Have we learned nothing from the Rachni Wars and the Krogan Rebellions? Remember what Shepard asks Avina? We needed the krogan to beat the rachni, and we needed the turians to beat the krogan. So who's going to beat the turians?

So who's going to beat Cerberus once we've made them the most powerful force in the galaxy?

[flemm]

Xilizhra wrote...

It seems to be completely impossible for scientists to not handle Reaper technology stupidly, which honestly makes sense, if the indoctrination process starts quickly enough.

This is the basic problem, really. We can hypothesize that establishing some sort of rotation, where you bring scientists in and out, might prevent indoctrination, or at least slow it down by a lot. But how much time around the Reaper tech is too much? How long do you have to be away? Does it make sense to try to figure this out when you are on the brink of war, and the Reapers might be able to retake the facility in the near future?

On the other hand, blowing it up produces tangible results while eliminating some potential risks.

But, as I say, from an in-universe perspective... the characters know they are going up against ridiculous odds. So, it's hard to throw away what could, theoretically, be the key to victory. Maybe the best chance you have. So... tough call, interesting choice.

Modifié par flemm, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:29 .

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Arrival. It seems to be completely impossible for scientists to not handle Reaper technology stupidly, which honestly makes sense, if the indoctrination process starts quickly enough.

Even after being directly implanted with Reaper nanites, it took over a week and a shot of red sand before Grayson fell under their influence.
Granted, Grayson was a special case but it's still consistent with the info Thanoptis provides.

Modifié par MisterJB, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:34 .

[jtav]

I'm going to meet you lot a bit more than halfway. It makes sense for Miranda to advocate destroying the base, but not for the reason given. She is habitually the voice of caution as well as pragmatism. Don't open the tank. Don't activate the geth. So if she does the mental calculation and decides the odds of indoctrination are greater than the odds of useful data, she'd say so. "I don't know. After the derelict Reaper, are we sure we can handle this safely?"

[Athayniel]

jtav wrote...

I'm going to meet you lot a bit more than halfway. It makes sense for Miranda to advocate destroying the base, but not for the reason given. She is habitually the voice of caution as well as pragmatism. Don't open the tank. Don't activate the geth. So if she does the mental calculation and decides the odds of indoctrination are greater than the odds of useful data, she'd say so. "I don't know. After the derelict Reaper, are we sure we can handle this safely?"

No argument from me. The 'betrayal' line is... odd.

[flemm]

jtav wrote...
She is habitually the voice of caution as well as pragmatism.

Yes, she does seem to be in favor of eliminating risk, especially risk involving other people doing unpredictable stuff. What does that say about her? Maybe that she has a lot of confidence in her own ability to do things, but not so much in the competence of others. So, better to eliminate the risk of other people screwing up, whenever possible.

So, the CB decision falls in line with that, to the extent that the "betrayal" line refers to how she fears TIM will misuse the base/do dumb things that will expose Cerberus agents to indoctrination, etc. That strikes me as extremely likely. Ergo, I'm cool with what she says (though I want to know more).

Modifié par flemm, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:10 .

[xelander]

I've only read the novels' summaries on ME Wiki, but has anyone tried to study the Reaper artifacts by remote access? Certainly, there are mechs with fine motor skills which can be controlled remotely, so that a team of scientists could run experiments from half a solar system away. All indications point to proximity being a necessary factor for indoctrination. And now that Miri has some data on teams that tried studying the Reapers, do you think she would try something like that?

Since physical annihilation is not an option yet, you need to know the enemy motivations, their mode of operations, where and how many there are, in order to have a chance at beating them. I just hope the writers will resolve this in a manner which I won't be able to poke full of holes, and I do hope Miranda is part of that, what with her being so smart and always playing on the edge.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I'm going to meet you lot a bit more than halfway. It makes sense for Miranda to advocate destroying the base, but not for the reason given. She is habitually the voice of caution as well as pragmatism. Don't open the tank. Don't activate the geth. So if she does the mental calculation and decides the odds of indoctrination are greater than the odds of useful data, she'd say so. "I don't know. After the derelict Reaper, are we sure we can handle this safely?"

Had she said that, I wouldn't have had an issue with her behavior at the base. Most of my Shepards wouldn't have agreed with her risk estimation, but that's something I could've imagined they talked through in-game. I can even see one or the other of my Shepards being convinced by her.

[jtav]

flemm, the problem with your argument is that she doesn't say that. What she says is a blanket statement about using the tech that's fairly unambiguous.

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...
So, the CB decision falls in line with that, to the extent that the "betrayal" line refers to how she fears TIM will misuse the base/do dumb things that will expose Cerberus agents to indoctrination, etc. That strikes me as extremely likely. Ergo, I'm cool with what she says (though I want to know more).

Doing something dumb like running insane risks cannot be construed as a betrayal. Betrayal implies intention and something/someone to betray. And the problem is again "Using ANYTHING from this base.....". If it was just the base itself, and implying that TIM wants to sacrifice humans in his experiments, it could have been seen as betrayal of her cause. But as she says it, that's not an option any more. She speaks as if anything from the base carries some kind of taint, which is obvious nonsense (that people make "moral" judgments from such feelings doesn't change that). As jtav said, a fairly unambiguous statement, and completely one-sided by not acknowledging the possible benefits.

Who is this impostor speaking those words? 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:31 .

[flemm]

jtav wrote...

flemm, the problem with your argument is that she doesn't say that. What she says is a blanket statement about using the tech that's fairly unambiguous.

On the "blanket statement" point, I don't find that point of view entirely convincing because what we are getting is a snippet of a larger exchange with TIM. I'd like to have been there for the rest of it, but the way the game is designed doesn't really allow for that. Certain things can be assumed to have already been discussed, such as how TIM wants to use the base, and why.

Partly for that reason, I want to have more information. But, I think, at worst, what we are talking about here is a line that is phrased slightly awkwardly.

So, if this is a conversation about whether the line can be reconciled with what we know about Miranda, I think the answer is yes, imo. If we are talking more to any ME3 writers who might be reading this thread, or who might get wind of these discussions, then I'm cool with sending the message that Miranda should have a coherent thought-process motivating her decision that we hear more about in the next game. Two different questions, really.

Modifié par flemm, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:48 .

[flemm]

Sorry. double post.

Maybe I'll just put a picture here instead...

Modifié par flemm, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:47 .

[Ieldra]

xelander wrote...
I've only read the novels' summaries on ME Wiki, but has anyone tried to study the Reaper artifacts by remote access? Certainly, there are mechs with fine motor skills which can be controlled remotely, so that a team of scientists could run experiments from half a solar system away. All indications point to proximity being a necessary factor for indoctrination. And now that Miri has some data on teams that tried studying the Reapers, do you think she would try something like that?

Exactly that kind of remote study is part of the research setup I outlined some time ago in another thread. The first objective would be to find way to determine if an artifact can indoctrinate. We could then separate the relatively harmless objects for further study and leave the rest somewhere in deep space away from all contact with organics until a protective measure is found
Such a thing would enable us to study, in a relatively short time, all those Reaper artifacts that do not indoctrinate on their own. That these exist is proven by the existence of the Thanix cannon and EDI.

Since physical annihilation is not an option yet, you need to know the enemy motivations, their mode of operations, where and how many there are, in order to have a chance at beating them. I just hope the writers will resolve this in a manner which I won't be able to poke full of holes, and I do hope Miranda is part of that, what with her being so smart and always playing on the edge.

I hope that, too. Unfortunately, the writers haven't proven exactly competent in this kind of thing. Most of the time, it's all about interaction and emotion, everything's broken down to the personal. I hope they can do justice to the strategic elements of a galactic war.

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

jtav wrote...
flemm, the problem with your argument is that she doesn't say that. What she says is a blanket statement about using the tech that's fairly unambiguous.

On the "blanket statement" point, I don't find that perspective entirely convincing because what we are getting is a snippet of a larger exchange with TIM. I'd like to have been there for the rest of it, but the way the game is designed doesn't really allow for that. Certain things can be assumed to have already been discussed, such as how TIM wants to use the base, and why.

The opposite is true. Neither Miranda nor Shepard knew a few seconds before that TIM wanted to keep the base. They didn't even know there was a way to kill the Collectors and keep the station intact. We do, in fact, hear all of the conversation, and because of that there is no additional context to add to that statement beyond that we already know.

So, if this is a conversation about whether the line can be reconciled with what we know about Miranda, I think the answer is yes, imo.

I disagree most strongly. I have seen no convincing attempt so far. You tried, but plainly I think you twisted the meaning of words beyond all recognition.

If we
are talking more to any ME3 writers who might be reading this thread, or who might get wind of these discussions, then I'm cool with sending the message that Miranda should have a coherent thought-process motivating her decision that we hear more about in the next game. Two different questins, really.

Actually, I would've been less annoyed had there been no justification at all instead of the one she gave. Then I could've used my imagination to provide a justification that makes sense. Instead I'm stuck with one that doesn't make any sense and is thoroughly un-Miranda-like.

But yes, an explanation that does make sense would have been hugely preferable.

And thanks for the picture. Some things never get old.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:48 .

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Neither Miranda nor Shepard knew a few seconds before that TIM wanted to keep the base.

Shepard, no. But Miranda seemingly did already discuss it with TIM, or at least consider the possibility on her own. The second interpretation would mean that she has just foreseen the possibility because she knows how TIM thinks. 

That is the significance of the earlier part of the exchange. I forget the exact words, but basically, "now that I've seen the base, I'm not sure..." Basically, prior to seeing the actual contents of the base, I was willing to consider the possibility of Cerberus keeping it, but not now. If she had not previously been aware of the possibility of keeping the base, she would not have needed to add that qualifier.

Ieldra2 wrote...
I disagree most strongly.

I know. And I wouldn't have it any other way tbh 
 
I'm just presenting other possible points of view.

Modifié par flemm, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:58 .

[Ieldra]

flemm wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Neither Miranda nor Shepard knew a few seconds before that TIM wanted to keep the base.

Shepard, no. But Miranda seemingly did already discuss it with TIM, or at least consider the possibility on her own. The second interpretation would mean that she has just foreseen the possibility because she knows how TIM thinks. 

That is the significance of the earlier part of the exchange. I forget the exact words, but basically, "now that I've seen the base, I'm not sure..." Basically, prior to seeing the actual contents of the base, I was willing to consider the possibility of Cerberus keeping it, but not now. If she had not previously been aware of the possibility of keeping the base, she would not have needed to add that qualifier.

You have a point there. I admit that clarification would be useful. As long as it didn't come down to something like "Reaper technology is evil" as the line suggests atm, I could probably live with it.

But I still can't see any rational thought process leading to the opinion that they shouldn't use anything from the base and that doing so would be a betrayal.

Ieldra2 wrote...
I disagree most strongly.

I know. And I wouldn't have it any other way tbh 
I'm just presenting other possible points of view.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 octobre 2011 - 04:05 .

[jtav]

I suspect the meta-reasoning was to convey how horrible keeping the base was by having even the hardened officer support its destruction. Which makes me want to keep it out of spite.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
I suspect the meta-reasoning was to convey how horrible keeping the base was by having even the hardened officer support its destruction. Which makes me want to keep it out of spite.

Yeah. I hate it if a game pushes its own morality on me. Especially if I don't agree with it.


Not with me!

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 octobre 2011 - 04:30 .

[Melra]

For realz.. We're still going on about this...? *yawns*