3618 réponses à ce sujet

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

alperez wrote...


Firstly let me be clear i'm not saying destroying the base is the right choice because its the choice i made, rather i'm saying that the choice to keep or destroy it is based on assuming outcomes of unknown events.

Keep the base.


B. Cerberus can be trusted to fight the reapers.

C, cerberus forces are no real threat.

I'd like to poitn out that 1 and 2 are not really in the game.

1) Cerberus wihth or wihout the base is not a big threat. And any research on the base they do, you can take from them by force - thus making it your own.

2) Trusting Cerberus is irrelevant. Not only because you're really lacking options, but also because of 1.

So to argue my points, you rephrase them and then suggest them as fact, when as usual its based on the assumption that your right, interesting tactic.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


I don't dismiss the other 3 posibilities, but they are realisticly so low and insignificant, and the situation so dire, that even if hte risks were 100 times higher, it would STILL be worth taking them.

And yes, I do consider the 3 a flawed logic, in that they focus on the wrong things and that the conclusions are wrong.

Way to prove exactly what i said about your argument, that your assumptions which lead to your conclussions completely blind you to any possibility that your assumptions could be wrong.

[Arijharn]

alperez wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


I don't dismiss the other 3 posibilities, but they are realisticly so low and insignificant, and the situation so dire, that even if hte risks were 100 times higher, it would STILL be worth taking them.

And yes, I do consider the 3 a flawed logic, in that they focus on the wrong things and that the conclusions are wrong.

Way to prove exactly what i said about your argument, that your assumptions which lead to your conclussions completely blind you to any possibility that your assumptions could be wrong.

What? He didn't prove your point at all, he decided that they were non factors to his decision, which means he weighed the decision, even if it was only abstract.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I prefer to work with more palptable and predictable things in debates - guessing what's in people's heads is not one of them.

And /lie

[alperez]

Arijharn wrote...


What? He didn't prove your point at all, he decided that they were non factors to his decision, which means he weighed the decision, even if it was only abstract.

Ok seriously, re-read my post, re-read your response and tell me how it doesn't prove the point i was making.

Placing little or no importance or treating the other 3 as flawed logic and that the other 3 arguments are focussing on the wrong things, does in fact prove everything i've said about the argument.

Lotion's reached a conclussion based on his assessment of what the pros and cons of his argument is, i've no problem with that at all, i reached a different one.

But rather than just accept that his conclussions could be wrong, his assessment could be wrong, he dismisses the other arguments as not non factors in his argument like you suggest, but of no importance or flawed logic.

Modifié par alperez, 08 août 2011 - 01:56 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

This is a weird debate,we have people fanatically in support of keeping the base,and pretty much no one firmly in support of blowing it, Neutral vs. renegade.

[Sebby]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

This is a weird debate,we have people fanatically in support of keeping the base,and pretty much no one firmly in support of blowing it, Neutral vs. renegade.

It shows the lack of faith the base destroyers have in their decision.

[SuperistSquirrel]

I blow the heck out of the Collectors' base every time. (Except my main renegade.)

Modifié par SuperistSquirrel, 08 août 2011 - 02:24 .

[Saaziel]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

This is a weird debate,we have people fanatically in support of keeping the base,and pretty much no one firmly in support of blowing it, Neutral vs. renegade.

I would throw in my 2 cents ,

however this particular topic has been discussed - Ad nauseam - and nothing more can be added in my opinion.

[marshalleck]

"We need a plan..."
"We fight or we die, that's the plan!"

E3 trailerShep is clearly of the paragon "I'll just blow this up and come up with a plan later" persuasion.

Maybe if he'd kept the base he wouldn't be up against a wall with no options.

Modifié par marshalleck, 08 août 2011 - 02:28 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Seboist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

This is a weird debate,we have people fanatically in support of keeping the base,and pretty much no one firmly in support of blowing it, Neutral vs. renegade.

It shows the lack of faith the base destroyers have in their decision.

Not really,most of us have absolute faith in what we did,we just aren't fanactical lotion and telling everyone that if they didn't do what we did they are wrong.

We point out that neither decision is "right" we beleive neither is "wrong"

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Saaziel wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

This is a weird debate,we have people fanatically in support of keeping the base,and pretty much no one firmly in support of blowing it, Neutral vs. renegade.

I would throw in my 2 cents ,

however this particular topic has been discussed - Ad nauseam - and nothing more can be added in my opinion.

This discussion is pretty much

"We defend our decision to blow the base,but your choice was also valid."

Lotion-"Logic,common sense,logic,reasoning,logic,common logic sense reasoning.I'm right and I don't spew oppinions I spew facts."

"We respect your decision to keep the base,but our reasons for blowing it were just as valid as your reasons for keeping it."

"NA-UH"

then more spewing of buzzwords "Logic,common sense,reasoning,terrorism,metagaming."

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 08 août 2011 - 02:51 .

[Sebby]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

This is a weird debate,we have people fanatically in support of keeping the base,and pretty much no one firmly in support of blowing it, Neutral vs. renegade.

It shows the lack of faith the base destroyers have in their decision.

Not really,most of us have absolute faith in what we did,we just aren't fanactical lotion and telling everyone that if they didn't do what we did they are wrong.

We point out that neither decision is "right" we beleive neither is "wrong"

Apparently you don't since you consider the opposite to be "equal".

[Saaziel]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

This discussion is pretty much {Snip}

then more spewing of buzzwords "Logic,common sense,reasoning,terrorism,"

Yes , i have notice that.

Modifié par Saaziel, 08 août 2011 - 02:38 .

[Sisterofshane]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I can see this:

1) by some stroke of luck we defeat the Reapers. Cerberus provides some amazing tech from the CB that tips the balance.
2) later, Cerberus builds a Reaper at the Collector base, probably out of Batarian prisoners of war, or from dead humans on the earth acquired during the cleanup (flash frozen so they don't deteriorate too much more).
3) the cycle starts again.

All this has happened before and will happen again.

We need to learn how the Reapers got built in the first place, and why. AI gone wild?

Woot! Page 72. Onward toward 80!

Why the hell would Cerberus ever what to build a reaper...EVER?

If you know how to build one, then you know how to build a starship of equal size and power, WITHOUT the goo bits and AI.

Probably for the same reason why the Reapers were created ingeneral. They are warships with advanced AI afterall.

And who's the say they can't find a way to make a non-goo version? EDI is based off them. Same with Sov's gun. No fleshy stuff involved as far as I'm aware. Still, Cerberus Reapers. Human Dominance. Sounds bad.

I dunno.  Yes, reaper technology is infinitely more advanced, but the level of destruction would be limited by the need of an organic (and according to the Reapers, ultimately flawed) crew.  There COULD be a non-goo version, but I don't think it would ever be quite as powerful as an actual "Reaper".  Cerberus might decide that they prefer the "goo" versions' power after all.

Still, I'm with you.  Giving aforementioned powerful tech to a human-centric (and often xenophobic) organization has a VERY HIGH potential to be bad.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Seboist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

This is a weird debate,we have people fanatically in support of keeping the base,and pretty much no one firmly in support of blowing it, Neutral vs. renegade.

It shows the lack of faith the base destroyers have in their decision.

Not really,most of us have absolute faith in what we did,we just aren't fanactical lotion and telling everyone that if they didn't do what we did they are wrong.

We point out that neither decision is "right" we beleive neither is "wrong"

Apparently you don't since you consider the opposite to be "equal".

Neither decision is right or wrong until shown to be so.

That thing called ME3 will be the judge,not us.

[Sebby]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

This is a weird debate,we have people fanatically in support of keeping the base,and pretty much no one firmly in support of blowing it, Neutral vs. renegade.

It shows the lack of faith the base destroyers have in their decision.

Not really,most of us have absolute faith in what we did,we just aren't fanactical lotion and telling everyone that if they didn't do what we did they are wrong.

We point out that neither decision is "right" we beleive neither is "wrong"

Apparently you don't since you consider the opposite to be "equal".

Neither decision is right or wrong until shown to be so.

That thing called ME3 will be the judge,not us.

Metagaming.

[marshalleck]

I'm in favor of Cerberus using the collector base to turn asari into paste and use them for pleasure cruise ships.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Seboist wrote...
Metagaming.

ah so we have completed a full circle,didn't think we had gotten that far again.

[Sebby]

marshalleck wrote...

I'm in favor of Cerberus using the collector base to turn asari into paste and use them for pleasure cruise ships.

That's quite a new spin on "embracing eternity'.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Wasn't DA the only dreadnaught at the BoTC,and it was disabled by the Geth

Well, the Arcturus fleet was supposed to have dreadnoughts too, but they never made it into the game.

They did, but they exceeded the amount of dreadnoughts the Alliance was allowed to have lore-wise, so those ships were 'retconned' into being cruisers.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

1) Cerberus wihth or wihout the base is not a big threat. And any research on the base they do, you can take from them by force - thus making it your own.

Now that is the part I'm unsure and somewhat worried about. I would mind keeping the base much less on those conditions, but I can't really be sure BioWare makes Shepard competent enough to actually do such a thing. Of course, if I came back on that decision based on what is allowed in ME3, it would be metagaming to some extent. Then again, If Shep were able of such a thing he would've taken the base for himself in the first place; it's not like he had other stuff to do.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
If Shep were able of such a thing he would've taken the base for himself in the first place; it's not like he had other stuff to do.

Except you know...killing batarians.

[Sebby]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
If Shep were able of such a thing he would've taken the base for himself in the first place; it's not like he had other stuff to do.

Except you know...killing batarians.

Oh so you're an anti-Batarian bigot now too? I sense some emotional instability here, that explains destroying the base.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Seboist wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
If Shep were able of such a thing he would've taken the base for himself in the first place; it's not like he had other stuff to do.

Except you know...killing batarians.

Oh so you're an anti-Batarian bigot now too? I sense some emotional instability here, that explains destroying the base.

He should have said vorcha, as an obvious jab to a certain someone else.

[Arijharn]

alperez wrote...
Ok seriously, re-read my post, re-read your response and tell me how it doesn't prove the point i was making.

I have... twice, and I still disagree with your argument in this case, and mainly because he said:

Lotion wrote...
I don't dismiss the other 3 posibilities, but they are realisticly so low and insignificant, and the situation so dire, that even if hte risks were 100 times higher, it would STILL be worth taking them.

alperez wrote...
Placing little or no importance or treating the other 3 as flawed logic and that the other 3 arguments are focussing on the wrong things, does in fact prove everything i've said about the argument.

Sounds to me like you're the one 'dismissing' the own crux of your argument in regards to what lotion wrote, because note specifically the parts that I bolded and underlined. He made a weighted decision, it just so happens that he chose against yours but that doesn't mean he dismissed the other situations necessarily out of hand.