You know that I hadn't actually reported you. I pointed out that what you were doing seemed to be trolling, and that you should reconsider your stance. I really do hope that you reported me though, because I really doubt that anything I've said could be construed as trolling, and the Moderators will need take a look at the context and make their own decision.
Den of Delusions - The morality discussion topic
Débuté par
Kaiser Shepard
, juil. 30 2011 01:18
Retour en haut
#652
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:24
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
Someone With Mass wrote...
Yeah, right. Just when I happen to be here and make a comment about meta-gaming. I don't think so, you ****ing twerp.
Charming. Guess I do need permission.
#653
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:26
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Doesn't have much to do with the morality if its just odds does it...regardless I disagree of his assertion so I spoke out,back to the sidelines for me:bandit:SandTrout wrote...
Not quite, Humanoid. It is a conclusion based on available facts and estimates of associated risk. Most of us have agreed that the disagreement of those estimates, resulting in differing conclusions, are valid.
The reasonable people know that it is a gamble either way, and we are guessing the odds based on available data and personal experience. The only really argument is over what considerations can be taken with respect to judging how those those decisions will affect the odds.
Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 02 août 2011 - 12:26 .
#654
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:27
Someone With Mass
-
- Members
- 38 560 messages
Dave of Canada wrote...
Charming. Guess I do need permission.
Yeah. Please ask next time, before you start whining and moaning about my comments as you always do.
#655
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:30
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
Someone With Mass wrote...
Yeah. Please ask next time, before you start whining and moaning about my comments as you always do.
I wonder what you define as "whining and moaning", all I see is you insulting me when I defended the non-metagame stance while you just childishly insulted the argument.
Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 août 2011 - 01:02 .
#656
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:31
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Oh come on guys,this thread has gone on for days without real bickering lets simmer down folks.
#657
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:35
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
@Humanoid_typhoon,
IMO, a lot of people have been taught screwed-up morals that attempt to displace logic and reason, while I prefer a moral foundation that embraces these concepts.
If the moral premise is to preserve life, then the argument is that either the CB poses more risk than benefit in stopping the Reapers, even if it involves giving some 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ advanced technology, because those 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ are more likely to help you against the 'Really Bad Guys'™ than to hinder you.
If they want to argue over the fundamental moral issue, the preservation of life, then they should bring up that topic. Instead, they have presented arguments about the dangers that the 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ because they may kill some people, even if they help stop the 'Really Bad Guys'™ that will kill all people.
IMO, a lot of people have been taught screwed-up morals that attempt to displace logic and reason, while I prefer a moral foundation that embraces these concepts.
If the moral premise is to preserve life, then the argument is that either the CB poses more risk than benefit in stopping the Reapers, even if it involves giving some 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ advanced technology, because those 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ are more likely to help you against the 'Really Bad Guys'™ than to hinder you.
If they want to argue over the fundamental moral issue, the preservation of life, then they should bring up that topic. Instead, they have presented arguments about the dangers that the 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ because they may kill some people, even if they help stop the 'Really Bad Guys'™ that will kill all people.
#658
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:35
Someone With Mass
-
- Members
- 38 560 messages
Dave of Canada wrote...
I wonder what you define as "whining and moaning", all I see is you insulting me when I defended the metagame stance while you just childishly insulted the argument.
Yeha, because you won't leave me the hell alone. Just go to another part of the forum and whine about meta-gaming and how Renegades are being mistreated there, because that's the only thing you're good at.
And remove that sig.
#659
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:36
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
I blew up the base not expecting to have to explain myself.SandTrout wrote...
@Humanoid_typhoon,
IMO, a lot of people have been taught screwed-up morals that attempt to displace logic and reason, while I prefer a moral foundation that embraces these concepts.
If the moral premise is to preserve life, then the argument is that either the CB poses more risk than benefit in stopping the Reapers, even if it involves giving some 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ advanced technology, because those 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ are more likely to help you against the 'Really Bad Guys'™ than to hinder you.
If they want to argue over the fundamental moral issue, the preservation of life, then they should bring up that topic. Instead, they have presented arguments about the dangers that the 'Pretty Bad Guys'™ because they may kill some people, even if they help stop the 'Really Bad Guys'™ that will kill all people.
#660
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:47
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
Here's my short argument for keeping the Base, have to go now so I can't really go into greater detail about it.
Basically:
Scenario: You kept the Base, it's technology proved valuable but you still lost the war.
Result: Nothing, you're dead. Nobody cares if you've kept the base or not as anybody who might've bothered is dead.
Scenario: You blew up the Base, you don't have the technology and you lose the war.
Result: Everybody's dead.
Scenario: You kept the Base, it's technology proved valuable and you won the war. CB Technology was necessary.
Result: The galaxy is saved, Cerberus is empowered for a brief moment while everybody else is studying Reaper remains. Humans have an advantage through early research.
Scenario: You blew up the Base, you don't have the technology and you won the war. CB Technology was unnecessary.
Result: The galaxy is saved, everybody is studying Reaper technology. Human researchers have as much of an advantage as anyone else when studying, Cerberus (if still around) studies it behind the scenes anyway though won't have a headstart.
Scenario: You kept the Base, it's technology proved valuable and you won the war. CB technology was unnecessary.
Result: The galaxy is saved, you've empowered Cerberus once again for a brief while when everybody is examining the remains. Do you think the lives possibly saved from the base's technology is worth the lives that Cerberus could possibly claim?
Scenario: You blew up the Base, you don't have the technology and you lost the war because CB Technology was necessary.
Result: Everybody dies.
Ect, you get the point.
Worst case scenario (in Shepard's mind from what we've seen) is that an isolated Cerberus research facility (as no other facility knows of the other's existence) consisting of 20-40 individuals is indoctrinated (It doesn't make sense how TIM could be indoctrinated with the way Cerberus operates from what we've been presented so far in the game).
Balancing risk / reward, I decided keeping the Base was the greater alternative to blowing it up. Cerberus might not be too trustworthy, though they've devoted years and billions of credits to defeat the Reapers and they don't have galactic extinction as one of their goals. Therefore, I view them as an ally in the upcoming Reaper invasion.
Basically:
- We've got no advantage in terms of Reaper study, we're going in blind.
- Should we win, regardless of what we've done with the Base, the galaxy is going to be littered with Reaper technology.
- We know the base contains Collector technology at the very least. (Assuming it has nothing else of value)
Scenario: You kept the Base, it's technology proved valuable but you still lost the war.
Result: Nothing, you're dead. Nobody cares if you've kept the base or not as anybody who might've bothered is dead.
Scenario: You blew up the Base, you don't have the technology and you lose the war.
Result: Everybody's dead.
Scenario: You kept the Base, it's technology proved valuable and you won the war. CB Technology was necessary.
Result: The galaxy is saved, Cerberus is empowered for a brief moment while everybody else is studying Reaper remains. Humans have an advantage through early research.
Scenario: You blew up the Base, you don't have the technology and you won the war. CB Technology was unnecessary.
Result: The galaxy is saved, everybody is studying Reaper technology. Human researchers have as much of an advantage as anyone else when studying, Cerberus (if still around) studies it behind the scenes anyway though won't have a headstart.
Scenario: You kept the Base, it's technology proved valuable and you won the war. CB technology was unnecessary.
Result: The galaxy is saved, you've empowered Cerberus once again for a brief while when everybody is examining the remains. Do you think the lives possibly saved from the base's technology is worth the lives that Cerberus could possibly claim?
Scenario: You blew up the Base, you don't have the technology and you lost the war because CB Technology was necessary.
Result: Everybody dies.
Ect, you get the point.
Worst case scenario (in Shepard's mind from what we've seen) is that an isolated Cerberus research facility (as no other facility knows of the other's existence) consisting of 20-40 individuals is indoctrinated (It doesn't make sense how TIM could be indoctrinated with the way Cerberus operates from what we've been presented so far in the game).
Balancing risk / reward, I decided keeping the Base was the greater alternative to blowing it up. Cerberus might not be too trustworthy, though they've devoted years and billions of credits to defeat the Reapers and they don't have galactic extinction as one of their goals. Therefore, I view them as an ally in the upcoming Reaper invasion.
#661
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:55
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
pablodurando wrote...
Other than the "you can't win if you blew it up" I agree with the post.
That was a hypothetical, thus the use of "pretend". It was to illustrate the point that even if Cerberus goes bad you can still salvage something useful from the base.
#662
Posté 02 août 2011 - 12:55
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
Someone With Mass wrote...
Yeha, because you won't leave me the hell alone.
Arguing = not leaving you alone?
Just go to another part of the forum and whine about meta-gaming and how Renegades are being mistreated there, because that's the only thing you're good at.
Thanks for saying I'm good at it. \\o/
And remove that sig.
I like it.
Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 août 2011 - 12:56 .
#663
Posté 02 août 2011 - 01:22
Sisterofshane
-
- Members
- 1 756 messages
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]Sisterofshane wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
The arguments I have argued against do not fail because I disagree with them. I disagree with them because they fail. If you think they do not fail, then tell me why! For instance:
(1) Why would you think it is an unreasonable expectation that we find useful knowledge about the Reapers on the base?
(2) Why would you think that "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them" is a sufficient reason to destroy the base, and why do you think that that overrides concerns about defeating the Reapers.
I have been arguing from two premises:
(A) Our primary objective is to defeat the Reapers
(
Survival of intelligent life in the galaxy is more desirable than sticking to a moral principle.
Of course you may not accept these premises. Indeed, not for the first time I get the impression that it is many people's primary objective to defeat Cerberus and not the Reapers, and I have also seen the argument that there are things more important than survival of intelligent life in the galaxy. But if you accept those premises, then you will come to similar conclusions as I have about the validity of some arguments. [/quote]
How very Machiavellian of you. Does the end always justify the means? Silly enough, the ending of Machivelli's famous book, "The Prince" has a very grim fate for those who practice this.
Machiavelli eventually notices that the very use of such tactics and thinking will ultimately leave said "ruler" vulnerable to the very tactics that placed him into power.
So, a supposition for you, if we do find what we need from the Collector Base, but at the cost of a Galaxy now dominated by Humans and Cerberus, does not this very act potentially lead to our very downfall anyway? Then what was the point in defeating the Reapers themselves?[/quote]
To live. That's the point.
Does this act potentialy lead us to our downfall? How exactly would it do that?
And if it does, that downfall should come a lot later. Ensuring thousands or millions of years more of human life..not a bad thing and nothng I'd regret.
[quote] It was my intention to show which arguments will ultimately fail as justification for destroying the base.[/quote]
Just because an argument is morally based and you do not see the reasoning behind it, does not mean the argument itself has failed. Just that you have merely come to hold a different opinion (based on a different type of morality).
[quote]
Even so, the reasoning for keeping the base is contained in my refutation of the arguments for destroying the base. It goes as follows:
(1) We are grasping at straws for a means to defeat the Reapers. We have no idea how that might be done.[/quote]
We as *the player* have no idea how that may be done. I think that may be important to argue here. This is NOT because the devs have told us that this decision will not come back to haunt us in regards to the ending of ME 3, but rather because the entire story is being told from the main view point of the protaganist, which is Shepard. To say that no other organization or person has been able to find a way from what we know of as Shepard's view of the universe is just arrogant. Of course it is safer to assume that giving the base to TIM is the only logical answer, but it's not the only concievable one.[/quote]
Really? That's just as silly argumen that makes no sense to boot.
Sheppard is the one making the decision.
As far as he knows, there is no other idea of how it may be done.
Not even we, as players, have any hint that someone else might have something.
[quote]
(3) Conclusion: to prevent that, we need to either close the technology gap, or obtain some other kind of understanding that will allow us to exploit an aspect of the Reapers to our advantage.
(4) At the moment, the best chance of getting knowledge about the Reapers in order to do either is in a place where one was to be built, namely the Collector base. It is the best chance because the base is the *only* such place we know of. If you disagree with that, you will have to present a better place to obtain the knowledge.[/quote]
This, as I said before, is *assuming* that this is our best chance. This has yet to be proven. Knowledge of the enemies technology never worked before (think Protheans). We also have to utilize other assets in order to stand a chance to defeat the Reapers. We need to unite the galaxy and come up with some sort of defensive strategy *quick*, because when ME 3 starts, the Reapers are already here. Perhaps letting TIM have the base makes sense now, but who's to say that the resources (money, manpower) needed to analyze the base would not be of better use elsewhere? [/quote]
Actually, it's exactly BECAUSE Of the Protheans that sovereign was stopped and the cycle delayed. Without the mleaving us a warning and wihout them finding a way to modify the keepers, the universe would have been done for.
The example you're using speaks agaisnt you.
Also, if you think the money could be better used elsewere, you have to prove that by giving a better alternative to the base.
[quote]
And, say TIM puts all his eggs into one basket and dedicates everything to analyze the base and turns up with nothing? (We know this to be possible because of all the resources he moved into resurrecting ONE person to go up against the collectors). Then in hindsight, we will all feel a little foolish that our resources weren't put to better use(building up the size of fleet, upgrading the fleet with existing proven tech such as Thannix and EDI). Heck, forget feeling foolish, we'll all be dead! Not a risk I'm willing to take.[/quote]
The chance of turning up with nothing is infitesimal.
When you study something, you learn from it. And something as big as the CB has a lot of things to study.
Frak, in 5 minutes on the base Sheppard learned more about the Collectors than everyone else in the galaxy.
Not to meniotn that throwing money at a problem is an effective strategy only to a point.
And re-fitting the ships has nothing to do with the CB. Re-fits are done by shipyards, not by scientists. And there's enough scientists in the galaxy that you can spare some on the base.
[quote]
On this we can agree. It really shouldn't matter with the Reapers knocking down our door. Even if it leads to the eventual distruction of certain species, allowing organic life to continue and breaking the cycle of extinction is too important to ignore.
But I think that you forget that the possibility of ones' allies turning around and attacking is very demoralizing to other species. In fact, they may not want to stand up and fight alongside us if they think that we might stab them in the back. And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if we have the tech from the base -- we stand no chance against the Reapers if most of the galaxy isn't united in this fight. [/quote]
I hardly think that will be an issue.
Not only is Cerberus small and it's fighting potential is insignificant on the galactic scale, but since no one practicly trusts them a nd they are not the race, and there'll be indoctrinated alines of all kinds fighting agaisnt you to boot, I don't see why any other race would loose faith in us.
[quote]
(6) Cerberus may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers. But even in this case, it is better to keep the base because it is a reasonable expectation that indoctrinated Cerberus will not be a great deal of help for the Reapers, considering the power they already wield, while if we can get our hands on the knowledge contained in the base, it might result in a decisive advantage. [/quote]
This is dependent upon too many variables to hold up in a real life strategy. Cerberus "may" not be indoctrinated, we "may" get something from it, it "might" be enough to give us the advantage. (all positives in favor of preserving the base)
Then again, it could be the exact opposite. And who says that an indoctrinated Illusive Man will share the secrets leading to defeat of the Reapers with Shepard and the rest of the Galaxy? Remember, we don't have the option to study the base ourselves - we either have to give it to TIM or destroy it.[/quote]
We can take those secrets by force. Far easier to take already compiled research data from Cerberus, than from the reapers. It would actually be a double win - the Cerberus does the dirty work (research), and you get all the benefit.
[quote]
The biggest hole in your theory is that you base the outcome of an
entire war on only one piece of the puzzle. Knowledge is not the only
thing that can definitively save us from the Reaper Invasion. If this
was the case, then the Salarians would be able to conquer this war all
by themselves because they are the most gifted when it comes to winning
wars just based upon intelligence. Knowledge of one's enemy is
important, but it isn't the only thing that we will need to worry about
when it comes down to defeating the Reapers.
So if one doesn't feel
the need to foreswear their moral obligation in order to beat the
Reapers, it wouldn't be the end of times.[/quote]
If we actually had any other advantages over the reapers, that might be true...but we don't.[/quote]
This...
I don't even know how to respond to this...
*Goes cross-eyed*
[quote]Sisterofshane wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
The arguments I have argued against do not fail because I disagree with them. I disagree with them because they fail. If you think they do not fail, then tell me why! For instance:
(1) Why would you think it is an unreasonable expectation that we find useful knowledge about the Reapers on the base?
(2) Why would you think that "Cerberus is evil. We shouldn't help them" is a sufficient reason to destroy the base, and why do you think that that overrides concerns about defeating the Reapers.
I have been arguing from two premises:
(A) Our primary objective is to defeat the Reapers
(
Survival of intelligent life in the galaxy is more desirable than sticking to a moral principle.Of course you may not accept these premises. Indeed, not for the first time I get the impression that it is many people's primary objective to defeat Cerberus and not the Reapers, and I have also seen the argument that there are things more important than survival of intelligent life in the galaxy. But if you accept those premises, then you will come to similar conclusions as I have about the validity of some arguments. [/quote]
How very Machiavellian of you. Does the end always justify the means? Silly enough, the ending of Machivelli's famous book, "The Prince" has a very grim fate for those who practice this.
Machiavelli eventually notices that the very use of such tactics and thinking will ultimately leave said "ruler" vulnerable to the very tactics that placed him into power.
So, a supposition for you, if we do find what we need from the Collector Base, but at the cost of a Galaxy now dominated by Humans and Cerberus, does not this very act potentially lead to our very downfall anyway? Then what was the point in defeating the Reapers themselves?[/quote]
To live. That's the point.
Does this act potentialy lead us to our downfall? How exactly would it do that?
And if it does, that downfall should come a lot later. Ensuring thousands or millions of years more of human life..not a bad thing and nothng I'd regret.
[quote] It was my intention to show which arguments will ultimately fail as justification for destroying the base.[/quote]
Just because an argument is morally based and you do not see the reasoning behind it, does not mean the argument itself has failed. Just that you have merely come to hold a different opinion (based on a different type of morality).
[quote]
Even so, the reasoning for keeping the base is contained in my refutation of the arguments for destroying the base. It goes as follows:
(1) We are grasping at straws for a means to defeat the Reapers. We have no idea how that might be done.[/quote]
We as *the player* have no idea how that may be done. I think that may be important to argue here. This is NOT because the devs have told us that this decision will not come back to haunt us in regards to the ending of ME 3, but rather because the entire story is being told from the main view point of the protaganist, which is Shepard. To say that no other organization or person has been able to find a way from what we know of as Shepard's view of the universe is just arrogant. Of course it is safer to assume that giving the base to TIM is the only logical answer, but it's not the only concievable one.[/quote]
Really? That's just as silly argumen that makes no sense to boot.
Sheppard is the one making the decision.
As far as he knows, there is no other idea of how it may be done.
Not even we, as players, have any hint that someone else might have something.
[quote]
(3) Conclusion: to prevent that, we need to either close the technology gap, or obtain some other kind of understanding that will allow us to exploit an aspect of the Reapers to our advantage.
(4) At the moment, the best chance of getting knowledge about the Reapers in order to do either is in a place where one was to be built, namely the Collector base. It is the best chance because the base is the *only* such place we know of. If you disagree with that, you will have to present a better place to obtain the knowledge.[/quote]
This, as I said before, is *assuming* that this is our best chance. This has yet to be proven. Knowledge of the enemies technology never worked before (think Protheans). We also have to utilize other assets in order to stand a chance to defeat the Reapers. We need to unite the galaxy and come up with some sort of defensive strategy *quick*, because when ME 3 starts, the Reapers are already here. Perhaps letting TIM have the base makes sense now, but who's to say that the resources (money, manpower) needed to analyze the base would not be of better use elsewhere? [/quote]
Actually, it's exactly BECAUSE Of the Protheans that sovereign was stopped and the cycle delayed. Without the mleaving us a warning and wihout them finding a way to modify the keepers, the universe would have been done for.
The example you're using speaks agaisnt you.
Also, if you think the money could be better used elsewere, you have to prove that by giving a better alternative to the base.
[quote]
And, say TIM puts all his eggs into one basket and dedicates everything to analyze the base and turns up with nothing? (We know this to be possible because of all the resources he moved into resurrecting ONE person to go up against the collectors). Then in hindsight, we will all feel a little foolish that our resources weren't put to better use(building up the size of fleet, upgrading the fleet with existing proven tech such as Thannix and EDI). Heck, forget feeling foolish, we'll all be dead! Not a risk I'm willing to take.[/quote]
The chance of turning up with nothing is infitesimal.
When you study something, you learn from it. And something as big as the CB has a lot of things to study.
Frak, in 5 minutes on the base Sheppard learned more about the Collectors than everyone else in the galaxy.
Not to meniotn that throwing money at a problem is an effective strategy only to a point.
And re-fitting the ships has nothing to do with the CB. Re-fits are done by shipyards, not by scientists. And there's enough scientists in the galaxy that you can spare some on the base.
[quote]
On this we can agree. It really shouldn't matter with the Reapers knocking down our door. Even if it leads to the eventual distruction of certain species, allowing organic life to continue and breaking the cycle of extinction is too important to ignore.
But I think that you forget that the possibility of ones' allies turning around and attacking is very demoralizing to other species. In fact, they may not want to stand up and fight alongside us if they think that we might stab them in the back. And as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if we have the tech from the base -- we stand no chance against the Reapers if most of the galaxy isn't united in this fight. [/quote]
I hardly think that will be an issue.
Not only is Cerberus small and it's fighting potential is insignificant on the galactic scale, but since no one practicly trusts them a nd they are not the race, and there'll be indoctrinated alines of all kinds fighting agaisnt you to boot, I don't see why any other race would loose faith in us.
[quote]
(6) Cerberus may end up indoctrinated and helping the Reapers. But even in this case, it is better to keep the base because it is a reasonable expectation that indoctrinated Cerberus will not be a great deal of help for the Reapers, considering the power they already wield, while if we can get our hands on the knowledge contained in the base, it might result in a decisive advantage. [/quote]
This is dependent upon too many variables to hold up in a real life strategy. Cerberus "may" not be indoctrinated, we "may" get something from it, it "might" be enough to give us the advantage. (all positives in favor of preserving the base)
Then again, it could be the exact opposite. And who says that an indoctrinated Illusive Man will share the secrets leading to defeat of the Reapers with Shepard and the rest of the Galaxy? Remember, we don't have the option to study the base ourselves - we either have to give it to TIM or destroy it.[/quote]
We can take those secrets by force. Far easier to take already compiled research data from Cerberus, than from the reapers. It would actually be a double win - the Cerberus does the dirty work (research), and you get all the benefit.
[quote]
The biggest hole in your theory is that you base the outcome of an
entire war on only one piece of the puzzle. Knowledge is not the only
thing that can definitively save us from the Reaper Invasion. If this
was the case, then the Salarians would be able to conquer this war all
by themselves because they are the most gifted when it comes to winning
wars just based upon intelligence. Knowledge of one's enemy is
important, but it isn't the only thing that we will need to worry about
when it comes down to defeating the Reapers.
So if one doesn't feel
the need to foreswear their moral obligation in order to beat the
Reapers, it wouldn't be the end of times.[/quote]
If we actually had any other advantages over the reapers, that might be true...but we don't.[/quote]
This...
I don't even know how to respond to this...
*Goes cross-eyed*
Modifié par Sisterofshane, 02 août 2011 - 01:25 .
#664
Posté 02 août 2011 - 02:02
Medhia Nox
-
- Members
- 5 066 messages
One of the places Bioware really failed is the Battle for the Citadel.
There is an entire Geth fleet blowing ships up - and Sovereign is fornicating with the Citadel Tower.
We see Sovereign kill maybe... what - three ships?
Sovereign isn't what's endangering the Council fleet - it's the Geth fleet.
====
- From approximately :24 to 1:46 we see Geth missles blowing the Turian fleet to smithereens.
- 1:47 Sovereign smashes through 1 Turian vessel.
By 2:01 - the Citadel is closed around Sovereign - he is NO LONGER FIGHTING the Turians.
4:15 the Alliance moves in (in this playthru - to save the Destiny Ascension)
4:35 - the Destiny Ascension is surrounded by Geth Ships. Sovereign is still giving head to the Citadel Tower.
From 4:36 - 5:00 the Alliance fights Geth. Only Geth destroy Alliance ship during this scene.
5:15 - 5:25 Sovereign destroys approx. 4 Alliance ships.
5:50 - a huge Alliance fleet (as in, not annihilated) opens fire on Sovereign. BTW - who is floundering like a dying spider.
6:16 - the Normandy blows up Sovereign.
====
You know what - I think Bioware did just fine showing it was the Geth armada - not Sovereign - (and a sneak attack) that did the vast majority of damage.
Everything else is player conjecture and invention.
===
The notion that we "need" the Collector Base or that we are "most certainly" dead - is untrue. The game reveals this at the end of ME 1.
There is an entire Geth fleet blowing ships up - and Sovereign is fornicating with the Citadel Tower.
We see Sovereign kill maybe... what - three ships?
Sovereign isn't what's endangering the Council fleet - it's the Geth fleet.
====
- From approximately :24 to 1:46 we see Geth missles blowing the Turian fleet to smithereens.
- 1:47 Sovereign smashes through 1 Turian vessel.
By 2:01 - the Citadel is closed around Sovereign - he is NO LONGER FIGHTING the Turians.
4:15 the Alliance moves in (in this playthru - to save the Destiny Ascension)
4:35 - the Destiny Ascension is surrounded by Geth Ships. Sovereign is still giving head to the Citadel Tower.
From 4:36 - 5:00 the Alliance fights Geth. Only Geth destroy Alliance ship during this scene.
5:15 - 5:25 Sovereign destroys approx. 4 Alliance ships.
5:50 - a huge Alliance fleet (as in, not annihilated) opens fire on Sovereign. BTW - who is floundering like a dying spider.
6:16 - the Normandy blows up Sovereign.
====
You know what - I think Bioware did just fine showing it was the Geth armada - not Sovereign - (and a sneak attack) that did the vast majority of damage.
Everything else is player conjecture and invention.
===
The notion that we "need" the Collector Base or that we are "most certainly" dead - is untrue. The game reveals this at the end of ME 1.
Modifié par Medhia Nox, 02 août 2011 - 02:04 .
#665
Posté 02 août 2011 - 03:31
Kaiser Shepard
-
- Members
- 7 890 messages
Ah, Mass and Dave at it again. Just like old times, huh?
Do try to keep it clean, though. We've had a pretty good run so far, guys, would hate to see it die so soon.
Do try to keep it clean, though. We've had a pretty good run so far, guys, would hate to see it die so soon.
#666
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 02 août 2011 - 03:38
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
Medhia Nox wrote...
The notion that we "need" the Collector Base or that we are "most certainly" dead - is untrue. The game reveals this at the end of ME 1.
"Sovereign's too strong! We have to pull back!"
Eat it.
#667
Posté 02 août 2011 - 03:42
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Actually, we do have a major advantage over the Reapers: Numbers.If we actually had any other advantages over the reapers, that might be true...but we don't.
Maybe not standing numbers, but we can create more ships to replace any we loose, and we have a total population of likely allies that is in the trillions. The Reapers may have thousands of Dreadnaught-scale vessels, but a Reaper cannot be easily replaced. Any casualties that they take are permanent, while ours are constantly growing.
Once we shift to wartime production footing, we can honestly be looking at pumping out thousands of vessels a year. Even if it takes 5, 10, or even 100 ships to take down a single Reaper, it is possible to out-produce them, and therefor outnumber them, if we can survive long enough.
#668
Posté 02 août 2011 - 03:43
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Yeah, Sovereign was strong, and was swatting cruisers out of the fight at a demoralizing rate, but it was eventually beaten.Saphra Deden wrote...
Medhia Nox wrote...
The notion that we "need" the Collector Base or that we are "most certainly" dead - is untrue. The game reveals this at the end of ME 1.
"Sovereign's too strong! We have to pull back!"
Eat it.
#669
Posté 02 août 2011 - 03:46
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
Well,we all saw in ww2 when a sleeping giant awakens.I can't imagine what a full scale Earth military industrial complex would be able to crank out with that kind of tech.SandTrout wrote...
Actually, we do have a major advantage over the Reapers: Numbers.If we actually had any other advantages over the reapers, that might be true...but we don't.
Maybe not standing numbers, but we can create more ships to replace any we loose, and we have a total population of likely allies that is in the trillions. The Reapers may have thousands of Dreadnaught-scale vessels, but a Reaper cannot be easily replaced. Any casualties that they take are permanent, while ours are constantly growing.
Once we shift to wartime production footing, we can honestly be looking at pumping out thousands of vessels a year. Even if it takes 5, 10, or even 100 ships to take down a single Reaper, it is possible to out-produce them, and therefor outnumber them, if we can survive long enough.
#670
Posté 02 août 2011 - 03:50
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
To be honest, Earth is occupied, and though I think the shipyards are mostly out-system, I'm sure that a lot of necessary manufacturing that would be required will be denied to us.Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...
Well,we all saw in ww2 when a sleeping giant awakens.I can't imagine what a full scale Earth military industrial complex would be able to crank out with that kind of tech.
However, the Turians, Salarians(I want to see one of their ships!), and Asari are more spread out and more likely to have decentralized industry, thus allowing the necessary production.
Modifié par SandTrout, 02 août 2011 - 03:50 .
#671
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 02 août 2011 - 03:52
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
-
- Guests
SandTrout wrote...
Yeah, Sovereign was strong, and was swatting cruisers out of the fight at a demoralizing rate, but it was eventually beaten.
That's not a very good kills to death ratio, now is it?
#672
Posté 02 août 2011 - 03:56
Shimmer_Gloom
-
- Members
- 573 messages
I'm going to reiterate my point about the Collector Base. I saw the CB as an 'Asset I Could Not Control.' It is powerful and dangerous and I would be handing it over to Cerberus. My plan is to get out form under the heel of Cerberus and I don't want them having tech that they have proven in the past unable to control.
Cerberus can't hold the asset. If the reapers want it back, they can just take it anyway. I certainly can't hold it since I'm just one ship and a crew of survivors. Alliance can't hold it. Nobody can.
And do you honestly think that Cerberus can get any usable intel out of it in the couple of months between now and the Reaper invasion? Do you think they would share it with me? Will we even still be working together?
As Moradin would say 'too many variables.' Too much could go wrong. I fought to take the base. I have the base. I can't keep it.
I blew it up. Sound tactical reasoning. Not the only option. But just about the only one I had where the risks were negligible.
Cerberus can't hold the asset. If the reapers want it back, they can just take it anyway. I certainly can't hold it since I'm just one ship and a crew of survivors. Alliance can't hold it. Nobody can.
And do you honestly think that Cerberus can get any usable intel out of it in the couple of months between now and the Reaper invasion? Do you think they would share it with me? Will we even still be working together?
As Moradin would say 'too many variables.' Too much could go wrong. I fought to take the base. I have the base. I can't keep it.
I blew it up. Sound tactical reasoning. Not the only option. But just about the only one I had where the risks were negligible.
#674
Posté 02 août 2011 - 04:41
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
How many ships did we loose to Sovereign? I know that it's mentioned in certain itterations of interviews with everyone's favorite punching-bag, but I can't find the quote right now. IIRC, it was less than 10 cruisers that were taken out by Sovereign. The Citadel Fleet doesn't really factor in b.c they were busy dealing the the Geth outside.Saphra Deden wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
Yeah, Sovereign was strong, and was swatting cruisers out of the fight at a demoralizing rate, but it was eventually beaten.
That's not a very good kills to death ratio, now is it?
In any case, no, a 1:10 Kill:Death ratio is not good, but once we start producing ships like happens in wartime, it will be good enouigh to beat the Reapers, eventually.
#675
Posté 02 août 2011 - 05:19
Shimmer_Gloom
-
- Members
- 573 messages
SandTrout wrote...
How many ships did we loose to Sovereign? I know that it's mentioned in certain itterations of interviews with everyone's favorite punching-bag, but I can't find the quote right now. IIRC, it was less than 10 cruisers that were taken out by Sovereign. The Citadel Fleet doesn't really factor in b.c they were busy dealing the the Geth outside.Saphra Deden wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
Yeah, Sovereign was strong, and was swatting cruisers out of the fight at a demoralizing rate, but it was eventually beaten.
That's not a very good kills to death ratio, now is it?
In any case, no, a 1:10 Kill:Death ratio is not good, but once we start producing ships like happens in wartime, it will be good enouigh to beat the Reapers, eventually.
I think we need to get off the whole 'do we have enough ships' thing. I don't think it's a question of 'do we have enough ships' becuase the game tells us in no uncertain terms that we CAN'T beat the Reapers in a straight up ship-to-ship fight.
We need a McGuffin. We need a plot device. Which I'm sure will happen in ME3. The Reaprs have us outgunned. Which is fine. Nothing like a good underdog story eh?
