2463 réponses à ce sujet

[Sisterofshane]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Oh boy...



Well, with the Battle of the Citadel, Sovereign did destroy at least four Alliance vessels with it's Thanix blast, after the Ward arms opened, as Sovereign was getting pelted with Alliance bug-bites, I'd need to go through that sequence to be certain.

But with the time from that fight, to when ME3 begins, I'm sure a good number of ships would have better weaponry, if not shields or armor. So it could still be fights of attrition, even if the Alliance does not upgrade ordinance, but it wouldn't be completely hopeless either.



http://masseffect.wi..._of_the_Citadel
http://masseffect.wi..._of_the_Citadel

Saphra Deden wrote...

This thread has turned out exactly the way I thought it would.

40 pages of people feebly trying to tell me I'm wrong without actually presenting any arguments or evidence of such.

Come on now! Comments like these are too much?!

No, according to saphra numbers are "subjective".
^Derp.

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 03 août 2011 - 03:35 .

[Grey34]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

EVERY ARGUMENT YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP HAS BEEN REFUTED.

No, they haven't.

You've all made up theories and tried to throw out any evidence I bring forth.

Christ, now you're saying our victory over Sovereign was a clean one.

You're ignoring both what happened in the battle and even Shepard's analysis of the battle. You're also ignoring Hackett's appraisal of the situation in ME2.

If you're just going to ignore any supporting evidence I bring forth then of-course I can't defend my position. My entire defense hinges on having evidence to support it ,evidence you all continually just toss out.

(and then expect me to accept your wild speculations and assumptions without question)

This thread has turned out exactly the way I thought it would.

40 pages of people feebly trying to tell me I'm wrong without actually presenting any arguments or evidence of such.

well then eveyones wrong and your right now go away and leave us ignorant peons to ourselves. but i must dissapoint you by saying there will be no option in joining the reapers.

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

And what evidence?

Eingana, the contamination on Ilium, the Battle of the Citadel, the codex entries on interstellar combat.

That's my evidence. None of it has been refuted.

1) An Eingana scenario would not cause human extinction(a point that you have acknowleged), and therefor is not a valid argument for surrender.

2) Eezo is not a life form that is capable of reproducing itself. Its contamination levels are static, at worst, therefor you example of the cholrine-based bacteria does not apply.

3) The battle of the citadel proved that we will take casualties against the Reapers, a point that is accepted. The conclusion that because we will take casualties means that the Reapers cannot be stopped is a subjective judgement based on extremely limited data, including the size of the Reaper fleet, wartime production capacity, and any technological improvements, some of which have come directly from Sovereign's wreckage.

4) Your premise is that the Reapers can supposedly lay waste to our worlds without significant risk of defeat is counter to our understanding of their objectives. They apparently wish to leave planets inhabbitable, but destroy space-faring cultures. Also, in order to take our worlds, they must engage our fleets in a decisive engagement. If we can inflict even a single irreparable casualty on the Reapers per engagement, we can potentially outlast them.

Do we have conclusive evidence that everything that you said is wrong? No, but neither are any of your points conclusively correct.

Edit: To clarify, we do not have conclusive evidence that we will beat the Reapers, but neither do you have conclusive evidence that we cannot defeat them.

Modifié par SandTrout, 03 août 2011 - 03:46 .

[Sisterofshane]

SandTrout wrote...


Do we have conclusive evidence that everything that you said is wrong? No, but neither are any of your points conclusively correct.

Edit: To clarify, we do not have conclusive evidence that we will beat the Reapers, but neither do you have conclusive evidence that we cannot defeat them.

A better point, does Saphra have conclusive evidence to support surrender to the Reaper invasion?NO
Do we have conclusive evidence to support staging a defense against the Reapers? YES

[Praetor Knight]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

1) An Eingana scenario would not cause human extinction(a point that you have acknowleged), and therefor is not a valid argument for surrender.

It doesn't need to cause human exinction. I never argued that it would. However the debilitation of Earth will leave humanity weak on the galactic stage and thus vulnerable to being overtaken by other species. Species which will be mastering Reaper technology.

But we'll have all those reaper corpses on Earth, too!

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

lol your rick has been roll'd

[Medhia Nox]

Don't do it Saphra! Don't admit defeat!

You might not be able to save the Earth or defeat the Reapers - but you can save BSN and defeat the Stupid Forum Goers!

[Praetor Knight]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

But we'll have all those reaper corpses on Earth, too!

They'll be elsewhere in the galaxy too. They also won't do us much good without a large economy to fund research.

What about Cerberus?
They do have a head start with that one base somewhere too.

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 03 août 2011 - 03:59 .

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Do we have conclusive evidence to support staging a defense against the Reapers? YES

What evidence woul that be?

That we have more than a "0" percent chance that we could win.  SandTrout explained this above better than I ever could.

[SandTrout]

It doesn't need to cause human exinction. I never argued that it would. However the debilitation of Earth will leave humanity weak on the galactic stage and thus vulnerable to being overtaken by other species. Species which will be mastering Reaper technology.

That is a very subjective judgement, especially considering that all of the standing powers (Asari, Turians, Salarians, Humans) are going to be taking a hit togeather. In any case, even if we are subjugated by any other species, we still have a chance to reclaim our footing, which is more than we get with the Reapers, and therefor even that worst-case scenario is better than surrendering to the Reapers.

That wasn't the point of that example. The point was that clearly there are catastrophes (on a much smaller scale even) that the advanced society present in Mass Effect cannot clean up.

Actually, it's more to the point that there are catastrophes that societies do not deem worthwhile to clean up. It was easier to pack up and move out than to clean up. Our argument is that Humans will consider Earth worth while. Even if they don't, we can still pack up and move out.

Unacceptable casualities that we cannot sustain for long.

Subjective judgement based on very limited facts. Again, we're not saying that you are absolutely wrong, only that we do not believe that you are correct.

Christ, Sovereign was able to literally fly through the ships that opposed it. Let us hope that the next time the Reapers are kind enough to use their guns and not just fly into us.

You shouldn't let fear color your judgement.

No, it isn't. As long as they value their own survival more than they do processing humans they can wipe us out if they so wish.

That is assuming that the think that they cannot have their cake and eat it too, in this situation. Granted, they may come to the conclusion that they cannot harvest us like they always have, but in the meantime we will be consolidating for a counter-attack. They still need to engage the fleets in order to destroy our worlds.

And I am only repeating arguments that have already been made. You do not need to accept our conclusions, but claiming that they are without basis is a lie.

Modifié par SandTrout, 03 août 2011 - 04:01 .

[Medhia Nox]

The Maker will allow us to win! Praise be to the Maker!

My Shepard is totally starting the Chantry in the ME Universe after I defeat the Reapers with the help of the Maker.

[Medhia Nox]

The Maker determines the percentage - only the Maker knows.

But - 10 Cruisers/1 Reaper - as per the Battle of the Citadel cut screen + Dev. info.

200 Billion stars in the galaxy + intergalactic civilizations.

Multiplied by the denial of information on galactic civilization.

Divided by the failure of the Reapers to secure their Relays and the Citadel.

Times the square root of Prothean assistance.

===

By my calculations - 100% chance we'll be able to defeat the Reapers in ME 3.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 03 août 2011 - 04:03 .

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

In any case, it's not a conclusion I disagree with. There is a greater than 0% chance that we can win, yes. The question is, how large or small is that number?

That was not the conclusion of your first post.

It has occurred to me that humanity at least is doomed no matter what we do.

If you are no longer arguing that we are facing certain doom, then you can conceded the point.

Doom is a posibility, but not the only one, and unless we have a 0 chance of victory, then surrender to the Reapers is not considered a reasonable option.

Modifié par SandTrout, 03 août 2011 - 04:06 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

That we have more than a "0" percent chance that we could win.  SandTrout explained this above better than I ever could.

That is not "evidence". I asked for evidence.

What you gave me is a conclusion. I want to know how you reached that conclusion.

In any case, it's not a conclusion I disagree with. There is a greater than 0% chance that we can win, yes. The question is, how large or small is that number?

No.  The question is: so what?

Victory... welll what is the alternative to victory... hmm... what are the Reapers trying to do.... I think I remember it somewhere.... Oh yeah.  Harbringer says it.

"FACE YOUR ANNIHALATION."

The Reapers want us gone.  So our alternative to victory is death.

I like the first option.  As long as the chance for the first option stays at greater than zero I'm sticking with it.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

If you are no longer arguing that we are facing certain doom, then you can conceded the point.

I said long ago that the title and wording of my first post was intended to provoke debate. I commented early on that victory for was was improbable, but not literally impossible.

So you admit that you were wrong in your original post.  Oh.  Then what was the point of this thread?

[ShepardTheMetalhead]

Here's a quick thought. Why don't you guys stop with the senseless and pointless internet bickering and ****ing and go back to your real lives? Seriously, you guys must have something better to do. This thread needs to die a swift death already.