3618 réponses à ce sujet

[Mykel54]

My main reason for keeping the base is that TIM is the only one with plans to deal with the reapers, not matter how insane his plans are. Quoting the urdnot shaman "Okeer was a madman, but he was a madman with a plan". The council and the rest of the galaxy has no plans, they will have to improvise. My shepard doesn´t trust TIM, but relying on add-hoc plans of the council is not a good idea either. Either way you are taking a risk, but i believe keeping the base is the lesser evil.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Skorpion_hrv wrote...

What if this was the other way around? e.g. Shepard was working for the Council all along and they asked him/her to keep the base (lets say that STG ships were already on the way to secure the base). TIM realizes this in the last minute, contacts Shephard and tells him/her that he/she should destroy the base. EDI would do the datamining and that way any useful information would remain only in human hands.
No doubt the ''basedestroyers'' would then be ''basesaviors'' and vice versa, giving the same, but with reversed roles, rationale.

The problem with that is,if you were working for the council you really have no business listening to TIM,and if they ordered you to keep it and you disobeyed you would be arrested.
To add to that if the options were
[Paragon] Tough luck,TIM ,The Council gets the base,call Anderson EDI
[Neutral] Your expirments will get more people killed then the collectors,blow the base
[Neutral] I don't like you or how you do business,but you're right ,Save the base
[Renegade] Alright TIM,call me when you find something usefull to my cause. Save the base
Then this would be a non-issue and threads like this would end pretty quickly.

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

[Lotion Soronarr]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

Not really. And it has nothing to do with moral implications.

If all you can get from a metal box is a slingshot, which can hurt the bird that you are friendly with, but can't touch the rhino, you won't be giving the slingshot to a person with strong anti-avian beliefs.

This is what can NOT come out from the Cerberus Base:

• Blueprints. Not how Collectors and Harbinger work.
• Something that has more firepower than a Reaper. The Collectors were designing a Reaper using knowledge and technolodgy known for billions of years. And they weren't even done that. No chance Cerberus will be able to make better than that, should they even have the chance to conduct engineering with Reaper tech, should they be able to recreate a Reaper without comitting genocide.

This is the best case scenario from saving the base:

• A Reaper. Should by a magical plot device Cerberus be able to reverse engineer the Reaper, the base only has materials for one, and it is very questionable whether you have the time to build a single one.
• Reproducing weapons to retrofit every vessel in the galaxy in order to have Reaper firepower. Well, guess what, you are still grossly outnumbered.

You can only produce something harmful to aliens from the Base.

And we are talking only in the case that we didn't view the E3 demo, there is no logic behind defending keeping the base anymore really.

Addendum - no blueprints per say, but if you can analyze reaper construction, then you should also be able to find any potential weakneses. That information might be very usefull.

I also challenge your assertions that Cerberus is so anti-alien. Pro-human DOES NOT equal anti-alien.


And the assumption that the tech form the base is only harmfull agaisnt the aliens, and not the reapers, is absured.
A bigger gun is usefull against anyone, reaper of not. A stronger shield is usefull agaisnt anyone, reaper or not.
Reapers might STILL be stronger, but so what? You want to make the gap between you as small as possible.

Needing 10 ships to take out a single reaper or 5 ships - thats a rather serious difference that does drasticly increase your chances of surival.

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

The most logical approach to saving the galaxy is to minimize risk.

 Such a non-statement <_<

 You may as well point out that the most logical approach is to maximise gains

 The point is that people logically differ on what are the bigger and more immediate risks to saving the galaxy), just as people differ on what are the more valuable gains needed (to save the galaxy)

 'The most logical approach to saving the galaxy is to maximise your chance of success' is equally vapid
 

[Seboist]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The path laid out by the Reapers is MASS RELAYS.

If races become dependent on them for FTL, then the reapers can close the network down and isolate the races.

Us looking into Sovereigns remains and the base is NOT what they had planned or wanted.

It's incredible how many can't see that.

[Someone With Mass]

I just don't think Cerberus is competent enough to handle the base, based of what I've seen.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

The most logical approach to saving the galaxy is to minimize risk.

 Such a non-statement <_<

 You may as well point out that the most logical approach is to maximise gains

 The point is that people logically differ on what are the bigger and more immediate risks to saving the galaxy), just as people differ on what are the more valuable gains needed (to save the galaxy)

 'The most logical approach to saving the galaxy is to maximise your chance of success' is equally vapid

Maximum gain, while minimizing risk asssociated with that gain.

People differ on the size of risks and gains, but as we see they do mostly because they are misinformed or use flawed logic.
As the "tehcnological part the reaper set" thing neatly proves. See, if people assume that ALL repaer tech is what is meant under that, then it gives validation to their decision to destroy the base (the reapers want us to use it). Howevemr that assumption is wrong.
And in a similar vein, many other judgments on risk and benefit are wrong.

[TobyHasEyes]

 Or judging that the possible gain from an action is outweighed by the high likelihood of the risk coming to the fore

 My point  was that the meat of the discussion is in debating those gains and risks, rather than the vacuous point that risks are undesirable

[-sltungle-]

A lot of the time I see this argue presented (of course it's usually a lot longer than this and contains more personal attacks):

Person 1: "The Reapers wanted us to develop down specific paths by using their tech. Using the Collector tech would be useless then."

Person 2: "The Reapers intended for us to find the Mass Relays and the Citadel. They did NOT anticipate us finding the Collector base. Using their tech would be beneficial to us because the Reapers won't expect it."

Now right off the bat person 2 would seem to be correct, but I have a counter to that point - I am entirely sure that the Reapers would not be stupid enough to give the Collectors weapons or any tech at all of a greater technological standing, or even anywhere near equivalent for that matter of the Reapers own. In the end Collector tech is probably designed to be useless against raw Reaper tech in case the Collectors ever somehow 'failed' and ended up attacking the Reapers for some weird reason.

I'm also sure the Reapers didn't supply the heretic Geth with tech anywhere near as good as their own. They'd never want to give any of their servants anything that could possibly be used against them.

[TobyHasEyes]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I just don't think Cerberus is competent enough to handle the base, based of what I've seen.

 Hence, in response to Lotion Soronnar's point..

 The argument that the Reaper's wanted us to use their technology is (as you correctly say) flawed, as Sovereign's remains gave us the best weapon we have seen against Reaper technology (the Thanix Cannon)

 However I also think that Someone With Mass here makes a valid point, that as

a) study of Reaper technology has always been shown to have an associated risk, and
that risk is massively increased when the research isn't conducted with proper consideration (and all that entails)

 ..coupled with
c) Cerberus, as an organisation, have shown themselves to not take the proper consideration, and as such have a track record of bringing the associated risks to the fore (most notably in Overlord which, short of Shepard intervention, would have resulted in a technological apocalypse) (ps though Overlord was not Reaper technology, I would suggest that as new and untested technology it can still be considered as symptomatic of Cerberus' research methods)

 it leaves Shepard with a logically reached conclusion that entrusting new Reaper technology to Cerberus is more of a risk than it is worth

 You can conclude that any possible chance of getting anything outweighs the associated risks, and I think that is a fair conclusion, but it is not the only one you can reach using reasoned argument

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 30 juillet 2011 - 04:23 .

[nicksmi56]

The way I see it, there's too much risk and not enough reward. Everyone who has worked with reaper tech (Saren, the "expert" Dr. Amanda Kenson, the team on the derelict reaper, etc.) has been indoctrinated. So we're pretty much certain what will happen. And there's no GUARANTEE that it will help against the reapers. Plus, I hate The Illusive Man. That's why I resolved to beat the reapers without it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

-sltungle- wrote...

A lot of the time I see this argue presented (of course it's usually a lot longer than this and contains more personal attacks):

Person 1: "The Reapers wanted us to develop down specific paths by using their tech. Using the Collector tech would be useless then."

Person 2: "The Reapers intended for us to find the Mass Relays and the Citadel. They did NOT anticipate us finding the Collector base. Using their tech would be beneficial to us because the Reapers won't expect it."

Now right off the bat person 2 would seem to be correct, but I have a counter to that point - I am entirely sure that the Reapers would not be stupid enough to give the Collectors weapons or any tech at all of a greater technological standing, or even anywhere near equivalent for that matter of the Reapers own. In the end Collector tech is probably designed to be useless against raw Reaper tech in case the Collectors ever somehow 'failed' and ended up attacking the Reapers for some weird reason.

I'm also sure the Reapers didn't supply the heretic Geth with tech anywhere near as good as their own. They'd never want to give any of their servants anything that could possibly be used against them.

Ahh..but you forget the base is used to build a Reaper..which would have reaper tech in it..since it's a reaper. So the tech to install into that reaper has to be on the base.

And Sovereign.

[Patchwork]

I don't think it does come down to 'I like blue! Well I like red!' Saving the base not saving the base seems to me to be a long term verses a short term view of what saving the galaxy means.

In the short term there's technology or information on the base that will probably help against the Reapers. Yay annihilation less likely.

In the long term Cerberus is much more powerful. They're the ones who control control and develop Reaper/Collector derived technology not Shepard. If nothing else ME2 showed that Cerberus is about more than crazy experiments with a tendency to go wrong. It's also about ensuring humanity, and Cerberus by extension, is top dog. The political semi-legal side of Cerberus's operation is a lot harder to fight than the science experiments. By saving the base Cerberus get respectability, the terminus colonists see them as saviours, endorsed by BDH Shepard. People in council space have to do business with them in order to get the technology Cerberus is selling otherwise the terminus system out guns them.

If I was metagaming I would say BW have us covered. There's probably a 10% chance at most of the Reapers winning. RPGing though do you make a deal with the devil to survive the immediate looming threat or do hope that a better option comes along?

[Someone With Mass]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 Hence, in response to Lotion Soronnar's point..

 The argument that the Reaper's wanted us to use their technology is (as you correctly say) flawed, as Sovereign's remains gave us the best weapon we have seen against Reaper technology (the Thanix Cannon)

 However I also think that Someone With Mass here makes a valid point, that as

a) study of Reaper technology has always been shown to have an associated risk, and
that risk is massively increased when the research isn't conducted with proper consideration (and all that entails)

 ..coupled with
c) Cerberus, as an organisation, have shown themselves to not take the proper consideration, and as such have a track record of bringing the associated risks to the fore (most notably in Overlord which, short of Shepard intervention, would have resulted in a technological apocalypse) (ps though Overlord was not Reaper technology, I would suggest that as new and untested technology it can still be considered as symptomatic of Cerberus' research methods)

 it leaves Shepard with a logically reached conclusion that entrusting new Reaper technology to Cerberus is more of a risk than it is worth

 You can conclude that any possible chance of getting anything outweighs the associated risks, and I think that is a fair conclusion, but it is not the only one you can reach using reasoned argument

Sure, I can accept that the advantages might outweigh the risks. I just don't like when it's forced upon me as the only "right" outcome, as it negates the situation where a choice can be made. The outcome should be different, depending on the choice but no side should face a crippling disadvantage, simply because their believes are also different.

And I simply believe that I'm better off without Cerberus and its shenanigans.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

I just don't think Cerberus is competent enough to handle the base, based of what I've seen.

 Hence, in response to Lotion Soronnar's point..

 The argument that the Reaper's wanted us to use their technology is (as you correctly say) flawed, as Sovereign's remains gave us the best weapon we have seen against Reaper technology (the Thanix Cannon)

 However I also think that Someone With Mass here makes a valid point, that as

a) study of Reaper technology has always been shown to have an associated risk, and
that risk is massively increased when the research isn't conducted with proper consideration (and all that entails)

 ..coupled with
c) Cerberus, as an organisation, have shown themselves to not take the proper consideration, and as such have a track record of bringing the associated risks to the fore (most notably in Overlord which, short of Shepard intervention, would have resulted in a technological apocalypse) (ps though Overlord was not Reaper technology, I would suggest that as new and untested technology it can still be considered as symptomatic of Cerberus' research methods)

 it leaves Shepard with a logically reached conclusion that entrusting new Reaper technology to Cerberus is more of a risk than it is worth

 You can conclude that any possible chance of getting anything outweighs the associated risks, and I think that is a fair conclusion, but it is not the only one you can reach using reasoned argument

Two points:

1) You forget that the risk is indoctrination. And that there is no known defense agaisnt it yet. There is no proper safe procedure ot deal wiht it.

So what do you do? If you truly belive that tech is vital to save humanity, you sacrifice scientist. They will become indoctrinated, but before they do they will dig out at last some data, and you may find out something about indoctrination in the process.
It's hardly the path one would want to take, just as one doesn't want to send soldier into ceratin death - yet sometimes one has to. The Cerberus scientist at the derelict reaper getting indoctrinated isn't a faliure on Cerberus part - it's a calculated risk.


2) We don't have the luxury of time. The reapers will be here soon, so we need to get usefull infro out of that bas FAST.
Say what you will about TIM, but he gets results. They way he drives research isnt' safe, but it's fast.

While certnaly with Cerberus doing the research the risk is greater, getting the benefits of the research might also be the difference between life and death.


Finally, one must  also consider the threat level of Cerberus, assuming it fails.
Since it's a small, cell-organized  organization with no navy of it's own, and a small (if very well equipped) army, even with reaper tech it represents a threat that would be easily contained the rest of the galaxy.

Even Admirtal Heckett in arrival (which takes place after the SM), confirms the galaxy simply isn't ready for the reapers. In light of that, destroying the base because of such a (comparatively) minor risk simply sounds like a bad decision.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 30 juillet 2011 - 04:49 .

[-sltungle-]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ahh..but you forget the base is used to build a Reaper..which would have reaper tech in it..since it's a reaper. So the tech to install into that reaper has to be on the base.

And Sovereign.

Why must the base contain the pieces? They appeared to be building it piece by piece. I doubt they have a huge room just filled with spare reaper parts. It'd make more sense for them to constuct them piece by piece than just leave them lying around: after all, they only really need to make one reaper every 50000 years or so.

Also, why must the base contain blueprints? Maybe the blueprints were 'streamed' from Harbinger to the collectors while they constructed the human reaper. Or perhaps they were even stored in the Collector General's mind.

A lot of the arguments for keeping the base seem to be going on 'what ifs'. But here are the facts as I see them - Reaper tech has consistently been shown to indoctrinate anyone who spends long enough around it. Even tech that's been 'dead' for tens of millions of years has proceeded to rapidly indoctrinate people. The reapers controlled the collectors and there was certainly reaper tech (in the form of the human reaper, and possibly in other forms) in the collector base. In my eyes destroying that base then and there when the option was presented was the best course of action.

That's not to say that I can't see the logic behind keeping it. I can. In fact the choice of keeping/destroying the collector base is, to me, the hardest choice I've had to make in the Mass Effect universe to date. Both sides have perfectly reasonable arguments to me, and the first time I played the game (hell, even on subsequent playthroughs) I had a great, great deal of difficulty in choosing what to do with it. But when push comes to shove I think I fall on the paragon side of things for this decision when I think about it for long enough.

Modifié par -sltungle-, 30 juillet 2011 - 04:43 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...
Sure, I can accept that the advantages might outweigh the risks. I just don't like when it's forced upon me as the only "right" outcome, as it negates the situation where a choice can be made. The outcome should be different, depending on the choice but no side should face a crippling disadvantage, simply because their believes are also different.

And I simply believe that I'm better off without Cerberus and its shenanigans.

How does the existence of a "better" choice (to which you have to come trough a lot of thinking and analysis) prevent making of a choice.
Choices exist trought the whole life.
Some better, some worse. People make them all the time, and often choose poorly.

If you manage to figure out which the best choice is - than yaay fo you. If not, you live with the consequences. That's how it generally works.

Sure in a game you can balance it artificially to create "equal" choices, but that's another point completely.

[Lotion Soronarr]

-sltungle- wrote...

Why must the base contain the pieces? They appeared to be building it piece by piece. I doubt they have a huge room just filled with spare reaper parts. It'd make more sense for them to constuct them piece by piece than just leave them lying around: after all, they only really need to make one reaper every 50000 years or so.

If they build it there (and that's the only base they have..where else would tehy build the parts and ship them over?), then the parts must be there. the base is massive..you seeen that? And during the game we only seen a very small part of it.

Now granted, they could be building it piece by piece (however I doubt it, as that is a inefficient way of building things. I find it hardoot belive that the super-advanced reapers have building procedures less efficientthat our current shipyards), but there still is a partially built repaer in there.

Also, why must the base contain blueprints? Maybe the blueprints were 'streamed' from Harbinger to the collectors while they constructed the human reaper. Or perhaps they were even stored in the Collector Generals mind.

Who said anything about blueprint?
But by analyzing sovereign and the human-reaper, one can learn a lot about the repaer design and construction.

[Someone With Mass]

If I've already made up my mind, I don't think I'd care if the other choice is better or not.

[Skorpion_hrv]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

The problem with that is,if you were working for the council you really have no business listening to TIM,and if they ordered you to keep it and you disobeyed you would be arrested.
To add to that if the options were
[Paragon] Tough luck,TIM ,The Council gets the base,call Anderson EDI
[Neutral] Your expirments will get more people killed then the collectors,blow the base
[Neutral] I don't like you or how you do business,but you're right ,Save the base
[Renegade] Alright TIM,call me when you find something usefull to my cause. Save the base
Then this would be a non-issue and threads like this would end pretty quickly.

You must have understood that my example, whether it be plausible or not, is irrelevant to what I had wanted to say. The point was how people are trying to rationalise something that is largely based on emotions. I kept the base primarily because I'm a TIM/Cerberus fan. If he had told me to destroy the base, I would have done it. Why I'm a TIM/Cerb fan is another story.

Just for fun I'll give my view of the ''base case'':
Real world: You don't destroy captured enemy technology. Period. If studying it has it's risks (indoctrination, if such a thing would exist), you take them. If it has a ''bad vibe''( people were killed by it, in it), you ignore it. Also in the real world, when something is dead, it stays dead (reaper in the gas giant, and Shep of course). Conclusion: keeping the base is the right option.

Imaginary world: When things die, they come back to life. Objects can be evil and can corrupt people (indoctrination again, magic). Immoral deeds always end in a disaster (Cerberus experiments). Conclusion: Cerberus = immoral = disaster = destroying the base is the right option.

However, I don't think that Bioware will punish renegades, we'll have our moment of glory. Later, of course, they'll make paragon Shepard cannon. BUUUM!

[Medhia Nox]

@Lotion Soronnar: I doubt you would be all for "choice punishment" if the decision to destroy the Collector base is proven to be the wiser choice - and keeping it is "stoopid".

You'll be on here raging about how Bioware are a bunch of idiots - and how this game favors paragon choices - and how you came up with the winning logic and anyone who doesn't listen to you is a fool.

[alperez]

Destroying the base has logical reasoning behind it as does keeping the base, but rather than accept that point, some people instead argue that only thier choice is logical and everyone else is being illogical by making a different choice.

There are valid reasons to keep the base, the possible info and tech available inside could prove to be invaluable in defeating the reapers, the cost you pay for that info/tech could prove to be inconsequential against the benefit you get from it.

But there are also inherent dangers in exploring that tech and there is of course the fact that you don't get to control the access and have to hand the base over to people who may not be ethical or trustworthy.

A key point brought up in me1 and again by legion in me2 has been using reaper tech allows you to progress in the manner reapers want.

While we have no choice in using reaper tech at times or in using the results of experiments on reaper tech, we do on occasion get the opportunity to decide if we by our actions will allow that experimentation take place.

To me the collector base choice is one of these options, one where we have a direct impact on whether or not its worth risking the potential hazards of experimenting with reaper tech against whatever benefit that experimentation may give us.

When you add into the equation that rather than control those experiments ourselves or hand that base over to whoever we wish should control those experiments, we're instead forced to hand it over to cerberus, it then adds a layer to the equation that makes any choice that much more difficult.

We're shown throughout mass effect a picture of cerberus, we see their actions, results of their experiments, what they stand for, what their idealogy may be and whether or not they are ethical or trustworthy, some of us interpret these things completely differently.

But when we're forced to make the decision on the base any logic has to include not just the potential positive/negatives of keeping the base or destroying it, but the potential positive/negatives of handing the base over to an organisation we may not entirely understand.

Logically depending on your own view and interpretation of the info and events you can come to a conclussion either way.

The only illogical thing is suggesting that someone who takes a contrary view to yours is being illogical.

[alperez]

HomelessGal wrote...

This still bothers me when people bring it up. Sovereign explicitly refers to the Mass Relays; salvaging Sovereign's remains and the Collector Base is hardly what the path the Reapers intended for us.

It could be that Sovereign refers only to what he thinks we know, so by saying the Mass Relays he isn't giving away any info we may not know to us, or it could simply be that he was unaware of the collector base itself.

But to me its more the point legion makes, about finding the path yourself, basically legion's view of what the geth's ultimate goal is = pretty much what was offered to them by sovereign, but rather than accept the offer, the geth decided to find their own path to the same goal and not allow that path just be handed to them.

Hope that makes sense.