3618 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePwener]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

And thus destroying the base is the logical course of action.

No. Destroying the base leaves us at greater risk of being destroyed by the enemy because we have no advantage.

Saving it promises information, information that increases our chances, minimizing the risk of defeat.

We've seen many Cerberus experiments go down horribly before, most of the time in such a way that their only "success" was that they were a valid proof of concept. I don't want murderous, near-sapient seeker swarms on a rampage across the galaxy whilst preparing for the Reapers.

No, we get mutant Protheans running around Omega. Which I consider a plus and Cerberus' plan from the start since Aria was a liability to them.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

ThePwener wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Neither choice is more valid then the other.

You won't say that when the Reapers are toast and everyone is scurring the remains of the space Cthulus to get ahead of the other races. With the base, we can preserve Humanity and defend it.... by force if necessary. Believe me, it'll be another kind of hell when the Reapers are squashed, and I want to protect Humanity from it.

You can speculate that with the base you have the key.you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt the key to beating them would be there.you cant say either choice is more valid until you beat ME3.this argument is pointless.

Im metagaming. BW already said that the key to defeating them is revealed halfwaythrough ME3, so no worries. The base will end up used to advance humanity. That's what TIM was thinking in the first place. I don't think he wanted to fight the Reapers in the first place, and was leaving that to Shepard.

Yes, Im metagaming.

Where do they say that the base was used to advance humanity? link?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Just because you understand a tool doesn't mean you can understand the tool that built it,and that also works in reverse.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 30 juillet 2011 - 03:56 .

[ThePwener]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Where do they say that the base was used to advance humanity? link?

Again, Im metagaming. Both endgame choices so far have been to that end (renegade choices).

[ThePwener]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Just because you understand a tool doesn't mean you can understand the tool that built it.

No, but it's a start.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

ThePwener wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Where do they say that the base was used to advance humanity? link?

Again, Im metagaming. Both endgame choices so far have been to that end (renegade choices).

Well if you want to bring metagaming into it,they say you'll find the key along the way,which implies either way you find whatever it is we find,meaning you didnt need the base,meaning...................Neither choice is more valid then the other

[SandTrout]

Concerning the game - you never once had to act on a "gut feeling" during your tour? You always had the time to evalutate every possible outcome and come to the most logical of conclusions?

We were trained specifically not to trust 'gut feeling'. I was Navy, so I didn't see any ground warfare, but an essential part of all military training is called Operational Risk Management. ORM can be done formally through a meeting, or on the fly. The basic principals is you rationally evaluate the most severe risk that can reasonably occur and place that opposite to the desired benefit of whatever task you are doing.

For situations that we could predict were likely to happen (such as torpedo evasion), we did the ORM in advance and trained with prepared reactions that we calculated were most likely to keep us alive long enough to return fire. If one person acted based on emotion, then the entire thing fell apart and we 'died'.

Because some ORM must take place in a time-critical environment, not all of it is perfect. There are limitations to what you can consider in a situation like the CB, but emotions are something that should be set aside for the moment so that the decision most likely to be best, based on admittedly limited data, can be made.

[ThePwener]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Regardless, no experiment Cerberus conducts will be more dangerous than the Reapers.

Indeed. Even if they [somehow] manage to create a Reaper, it would be destroyed by the combined might of all species. When the Reapers are destroyed, the cycle could not happen again.....

[ThePwener]

SandTrout wrote...

Concerning the game - you never once had to act on a "gut feeling" during your tour? You always had the time to evalutate every possible outcome and come to the most logical of conclusions?

We were trained specifically not to trust 'gut feeling'. I was Navy, so I didn't see any ground warfare, but an essential part of all military training is called Operational Risk Management. ORM can be done formally through a meeting, or on the fly. The basic principals is you rationally evaluate the most severe risk that can reasonably occur and place that opposite to the desired benefit of whatever task you are doing.

For situations that we could predict were likely to happen (such as torpedo evasion), we did the ORM in advance and trained with prepared reactions that we calculated were most likely to keep us alive long enough to return fire. If one person acted based on emotion, then the entire thing fell apart and we 'died'.

Because some ORM must take place in a time-critical environment, not all of it is perfect. There are limitations to what you can consider in a situation like the CB, but emotions are something that should be set aside for the moment so that the decision most likely to be best, based on admittedly limited data, can be made.

dido

[pablodurando]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Where do they say that the base was used to advance humanity? link?

Again, Im metagaming. Both endgame choices so far have been to that end (renegade choices).

Well if you want to bring metagaming into it,they say you'll find the key along the way,which implies either way you find whatever it is we find,meaning you didnt need the base,meaning...................Neither choice is more valid then the other

Broaden your spectrum past the series and into the future.   The base could help advance the galaxy's civilizations further after the war.

[ThePwener]

[quote]Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Again, Im metagaming. Both endgame choices so far have been to that end (renegade choices). [/quote]Well if you want to bring metagaming into it,they say you'll find the key along the way,which implies either way you find whatever it is we find,meaning you didnt need the base,meaning...................Neither choice is more valid then the other
[/quote]

Stop it!

You want equality? Destroy it and ****** off TIM (only good thing I see in that scenario).

You want dominance/Darth Shepard? Keep it and still call out TIM (plus!).

[Kaiser Shepard]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

We've seen many Cerberus experiments go down horribly before, most of the time in such a way that their only "success" was that they were a valid proof of concept.

Success is success.

The only outright failure I can think of is the rachni experiment.

Teltin gave us Jack and Jack was extremely useful during the Collector operation.

Everybody really overblows Cerberus' "failures" as a way to justify hating them.

The Reaper IFF? A success. The goal was accomplished. Frankly, we don't even know if being indoctrinated wasn't one of the goals all a long. I've got my own theory on that.

Regardless, no experiment Cerberus conducts will be more dangerous than the Reapers.

Sure, they sometimes achieve success, but at what cost?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

We've seen many Cerberus experiments go down horribly before, most of the time in such a way that their only "success" was that they were a valid proof of concept.

Success is success.

The only outright failure I can think of is the rachni experiment.

Teltin gave us Jack and Jack was extremely useful during the Collector operation.

Everybody really overblows Cerberus' "failures" as a way to justify hating them.

The Reaper IFF? A success. The goal was accomplished. Frankly, we don't even know if being indoctrinated wasn't one of the goals all a long. I've got my own theory on that.

Regardless, no experiment Cerberus conducts will be more dangerous than the Reapers.

Sure, they sometimes achieve success, but at what cost?

Sacrificing 70% of your men to make the rest twice as strong.

[Phaedon]

Ausstig wrote...

The way I see it is this; the base makes reapers, therefore it must have blueprints, designs, something in how they work and are put together something we can look at and find a weakness.
I mean Sovereign took down a huge amount of ships so any way to even the would help.

oh, maybe a gun that simulates what happen to Sovereign after husk Sarren is destroyed, that would be use full.

Yes, if you didn't pay any attention as to how Collectors work throughout the game.


And no, failure is failure. If you don't want to accept Cerberus for what it is, you should rather turn your attention to another amoral group that is actually succesful, the Spectres.

Unplanned loss of operatives or escape of test subjects is nothing but evidence of incompetence.

Modifié par Phaedon, 30 juillet 2011 - 05:23 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

We've seen many Cerberus experiments go down horribly before, most of the time in such a way that their only "success" was that they were a valid proof of concept.

Success is success.

The only outright failure I can think of is the rachni experiment.

Teltin gave us Jack and Jack was extremely useful during the Collector operation.

Everybody really overblows Cerberus' "failures" as a way to justify hating them.

The Reaper IFF? A success. The goal was accomplished. Frankly, we don't even know if being indoctrinated wasn't one of the goals all a long. I've got my own theory on that.

Regardless, no experiment Cerberus conducts will be more dangerous than the Reapers.

Sure, they sometimes achieve success, but at what cost?

Sacrificing 70% of your men to make the rest twice as strong.

That only leaves you with 60% of your original strength.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
That only leaves you with 60% of your original strength.

Exactly.

[Skirata129]

I kept it. why? because when you have an angry rhino charging at you and a gun on the floor made by slave labor, you don't stop to question the moral implications of your usage of it. You pick up the ***ing gun and waste the rhino.

[SandTrout]

Skirata129 wrote...

I kept it. why? because when you have an angry rhino charging at you and a gun on the floor made by slave labor, you don't stop to question the moral implications of your usage of it. You pick up the ***ing gun and waste the rhino.

True, but the analogy is somewhat inaccurate. Instead of a gun made by slave labor, it's a hot grenade that you can shove down the rhino's throat. You're probably going to loose the hand, you may get trampled anyways, and the grenade might not do anything significant to stop the rhino.

[didymos1120]

Skirata129 wrote...

I kept it. why? because when you have an angry rhino charging at you and a gun on the floor made by slave labor, you don't stop to question the moral implications of your usage of it. You pick up the ***ing gun and waste the rhino.

Here's the problem with that analogy: you're not picking up a gun. You're picking up a piece of poorly understood tech that may or may not allow you develop a new, more effective type of gun provided you can figure out the principles involved in its construction and then weaponize the results of that research....all while the rhino is still charging.  Also, the rhino just happens to be superintelligent, already knows exactly how that tech works, and can very likely kill you and take it back.  And almost certainly wants to take it back.  Also, he's part of an entire herd of superintelligent rhinos.

Modifié par didymos1120, 30 juillet 2011 - 05:41 .

[Skirata129]

...and the alternative is fighting the rhino barehanded?

[SandTrout]

Skirata129 wrote...

...and the alternative is fighting the rhino barehanded?

More like fighting the rhino with a combat knife.

[didymos1120]

Skirata129 wrote...

...and the alternative is fighting the rhino barehanded?

Not really the point.  The point is that that is a terrible analogy.