2463 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

So your little rant about the dangers of eezo poisoning the planets were a complete lie? Good to know.

No, you left out the part where I said the planet would recover. It would just take a while depending on the damage done.

Which my numbers (from the codex) say will likely be quick enough that recovery and a rebound are likly scenarios.

Modifié par SandTrout, 15 août 2011 - 05:54 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

@Saphra you are doing the same thing with negative assumptions,does that mean you're also "talking out your ass"?



inb4 insult.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 06:00 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

@Saphra you are doing the same thing with negative assumptions,does that mean you're also "talking out your ass"?

Nope. I have hard facts to support my hypothesis.

But a hypothesis is still an assumption until proven ,and most of your "hard facts" are actually speculation,which is what everyone has at this point (aside from BW).

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 15 août 2011 - 06:08 .

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

@Saphra you are doing the same thing with negative assumptions,does that mean you're also "talking out your ass"?

Nope. I have hard facts to support my hypothesis.

I have codex based percentages of eezo-caused birth defects.

You have 1 planet description that makes unquantified references to an 'extinction event' about which we know almost nothing, other than some unknown quantity of species went extinct, while enough did not that the planet remained habitable.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

]I have codex based percentages of eezo-caused birth defects.

No, all you have are assumptions you've made to create your argument.

But that is also what you have....

[SandTrout]

No, all you have are assumptions you've made to create your argument.

So the maximum child mortality rate of 40% is an assumption?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

But that is also what you have....

No, as I just explained I have evidence and theories which extrapolate upon that evidence.

But, hypothesis=/=fact,  I agree ,in war always assume and prepare for the worst.

But that doesn't mean make yourself blind to the posibility things may work out better then you feared.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

]I have codex based percentages of eezo-caused birth defects.

No, all you have are assumptions you've made to create your argument.

The only assumption that can be made when presented with a hard statistic.

The only numbers we have relating to the effects of eezo exposure are that 30% of all known exposures in utero result in some form of malignant side affect, be it tumors, cancer, or still births.

10% develop biotics.

The remaining 60% suffer no effects from exposure at all.


From your pieces of evidence (of which the only numbers we have are the ones mentioned above), you have assumed (without cause) that:

Eezo is toxic to fully developed beings(human/animal).
Eezo is toxic to plant life.
Eezo can definitely cause mass extinction.
Reapers mass effect cores are very large (indeed from the derelict Reaper we know them to be relatively small compared to the size of the Reaper ship).
That there will be a battle over Earth of sufficient size to cause Eezo to become widespread.
The effects of the "contamination" would be immedietly severe enough that it would prompt the population of Earth to abandon the planet.


I can go on, but basically, every point you have made is an assumption based upon generalities -- codexes that use words such as "theorize", "some", and "most".  You have never presented any meaningful data points (numbers) with which to back up your assumptions.  You dismiss any relevent numbers brought up to counter your point, as if the numbers themselves were speaking mistruths.

Instead, you go about questioning the intelligence of people who have a way of thinking that is contradictory to yours.  You hypocritically label them as "selfish", when indeed many of them have proven to be "selfless" (willing to sacrifice themselves for the continuation of life other then their own, which seems to be your primary concern).  You even go so far as to unabashadly insult your audience, the very people you are trying to sway to your argument.

Any numbers you have mentioned, have indeed been pulled out of thin air, such as your "before the BotC" number of a 1% survival chance, raised to 5% after we defeated the sovereign (which later was changed to 10%, by yourself, without any explanation as to the change in rationality).

You formed a hypothesis based on incomplete data and a poor understanding as to the nature of Earth, Eezo, Humanity, and the Reapers.  There are LOGICAL reasons as to why we should listen to what you say and hold it as plausible, but you have not managed to touch upon any of these logical points.

[SandTrout]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

No, all you have are assumptions you've made to create your argument.

So the maximum child mortality rate of 40% is an assumption?

Yes. You are also ignoring just how big an effect that will have on the population as a whole.

The number is then not an assumption. You can disagree with my conclusion on families compensating by trying again, which is based in historical trends, but you don't get to call those numbers 'assumptions'. If you still think it is, then I don't think you know what the word means.

A 40% drop in population in successive generations is pretty bad.

Yep, but we've survived and prospered through worse. You're assuming that it will be crippling, which it will not be, based on history.

That's also not considering all the cancers and birth defects which could in many cases adversely effect future generations.

It could only adversely effect the successive gernerations of the unfortunate 40%, which if they die, then wont pass on their weak genetics in any case. You are assuming, incorrectly, at that, that a 40% infant mortality rate translates dirrectly to a 40% decrease in population. It translates more accurately to a decrease in growth, but not necessarily as negative growth.

Then there are the plants and animals humans (on Earth especially) depend on and the effecton them. This in turn can have an effect on the rest of humanity.

You are assuming the effect of Eezo on plant and animal life, extrapolated from data from an alien world that benefited from 0 cleanup or genetic engineering. Additionally, there are still major sources of food coming in from the dozens of colonies that are probably going to see a major influx of labor (assumption based on historical trends in post-war countries).

[100k]

Pft. Reporting this thread, as it's nothing more than a flaming station.

[Weskerr]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Do you have any grasp or tactics and logistics at all?

Well, General Lotion Soronnar, I guess your expertise in this area precludes me from knowing anything about tactics and logistics.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What this means is that tehy can move everywhere at will, attack anywhere in full force. They don't have to guard anything. Unlike us. We have to leave rear guard, protect vital worlds and instalations. All of THEIR assets are mobile and can FTL . Our assets are static and vulnerable.

I think you're overestimating them and ignoring their disadvantages. Their strategy is to strike at different locations simultaneously. They can't do this without splitting up their forces. Attacking anywhere in full force would undermine their strategy, unless you think their strategy is to attack locations one by one with their entire army. So no, they can't attack anywhere in full force. The Reapers not having any territories to defend greatly simplifies what we need to do to win the war to one objective: destroy their army. We don't need to split up our forces to sabatoge supply lines, or to attack production facilities. Since the Reaper's strategy requires them to split up their forces, the more locations they attack simultaneously, the more fragmented their army becomes. This gives each location being attacked a less powerful force to defend against.

You're over-simplifying the matter when you say that all of their assets being mobile are an advantage because you're neglecting to mention that it requires far more resources to build a single Reaper than it does to build a single Alliance dreadnaught. You need a facility the size of the Collector Base to produce a Reaper as well as millions of abducted people from a single species (not to mention drones like the Collectors to do the abducting) and probably an enormous amount of synthetic material. In other words, from a practical perspective, each Reaper is irreplacable.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What this means is that they have complete stratigic dominance. If they hit a planet we must either abandon it or are forced to defend. And they have far superior defences and firepower. If at any times the odds are not in their favor, they can retreat and attakc something else. And since you can't drag the planets behind you, what do you do then? Split the forces? Don't persure? Persue in force?
If you don't persue they'll devastate the other target. If you do persure with all the force, they - being faster and more manouverable - can just double back and glass the unprotected target.
And splitting the forces really ins't an option agaisnt the repaers.

This is just a simpel example, but it shows you how they can play games with us with ease.
Static assets are a massive ball and chain around our defense efforts.

Complete strategic dominance? Not if we have an effective strategy of our own. For example, we could leave a small force of battleships around a planet - that will likely be attacked - as bait. At the same time, a much larger force of battleships could be stationed a few lightyears away and attack the Reapers from behind once they start to overwhelm the smaller force and begin their reaping of the planet. The Reapers, in other words, would be deceived into thinking that they wiped out our entire force and let their guard down. In the meantime, our larger force only a few lightyears away would FTL to their position and ambush them.

They may have had far superior defences and firepower before we collected the remains of Sovereign, but perhaps they're not far superior anymore. We could have improved our shields and firepower to match those of any Reaper from studying the remains of Sovereign.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
False assumptions. If the reapers retreat, that doens't have to be becasue they are weak - but because they are smart. They have incredibly powerfull barriers - we saw a STATIC Sovereign take a pounding from two fleets.
That means that have plenty of a safety net when it comes to time to retreat. We saw our ships geting one-shot-killed. They don't have that luxury.
Basicly repaers retreat to preserve their numbers - and every time they retreat, you'll be loosing ships.

Even if we assume we'll be able to take out some of them - how many ships would we loose in exchange? You can't build ships overnight..and shipyards are in space. A big, static target for the reapers.

If the Reapers are so much more powerful than us - offensively and defensively - then why would they ever see the need to tacticly retreat? What is smart about retreating if you don't need to - when you can just wipe out the enemy force in a straight-up battle? Also don't forget that Sovereign's destruction provided new technology like the Thanix Cannon. It's not a stretch to think that this awesome weapon was retrofitted into most or even all warships just as it was into the Normandy. Sovereign's remains could have even provided information on building Reaper shield technology into ships. With this new technology, we might stand a chance against them in an open space battle.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Also, you're assuming they can't repair or ressuply themselves. that is incorrect. With their husks and indoctrinated slaves, they got everything they need.

What the reapers can do is use Guerila warfare with a vastly superior and more mobile force - if they do that, then even a McGuffin would be hard pressed to help us.

I doubt husks have the intelligence to do anything except act like zombies ("braaaaaaaaaaaiiiiinnnss"). They're more mindless than gibbering morons. Yes, I agree that indoctrinated slaves could repair their ships, but you'd need a lot of these slaves to repair even one Repear (Reapers are huge). Granted, there are a lot of people in the galaxy to indoctrinate, but unless the Reapers have already subtly indoctrinated a lot of people before they invaded, quickly indoctrinating people runs the risk of ruining their cognition, and I doubt that people who can't cognate anymore can repair Reapers.

Guerrilla warfare by its very nature means that the force engaging in it are inferior numerically and qualitatively to the force they are fighting. I don't think the Reapers are inferior in either respect. They're not necessarily far superior either, at least not anymore.

I think the biggest advantage the Reapers have over anyone else is indoctrination.

[SandTrout]

Yes, it will. A 40% drop in the population is huge and it could easily be worse than that. Remember, you're just taking into account direct eezo exposure and the effects on fetuses. You aren't accounting for all the other problems related to it (such as potential food shortages).

Everything except for the effect of fetuses is baseless assumption.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

Yes, it will. A 40% drop in the population is huge and it could easily be worse than that. Remember, you're just taking into account direct eezo exposure and the effects on fetuses. You aren't accounting for all the other problems related to it (such as potential food shortages).

Everything except for the effect of fetuses is baseless assumption.

No, it isn't. Eezo will affect plant and animal life broadely the same way it does humans. This will wreck havoc with the eco-system and will have a negative effect on food supplies.

Prove it then.  Eingana never explicitly states that it effects anything out of utero, so it's out.  It may effect animal life, but again it never says that Eingana was turned into a "wasteland", so you can't prove that it effects plant life, either. 

In fact, there is nothing lore-wise within the game, be it codex, or dialogue, or something that one of the devs mentioned in passing, to suggest that eezo is toxic to anything other then fetuses.

They are BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS.

[SandTrout]

No, it isn't. Eezo will affect plant and animal life broadely the same way it does humans. This will wreck havoc with the eco-system and will have a negative effect on food supplies.

Source?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

SandTrout wrote...

No, it isn't. Eezo will affect plant and animal life broadely the same way it does humans. This will wreck havoc with the eco-system and will have a negative effect on food supplies.

Source?

"I have said it multiple times,go read something,gosh so stupid"


Yeah,pretty much that.