Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You shoot yourself in the foot here.
"Stop the collectors" is a genral as you can get. That's no plan - taht's a statement of intenet.
And no point does TIM tell you to blow the base up. Yet you expect him to tell you to capture it before we (and he) even knows anything about the base, or even if there is one to begin with!
Again, you can't capture something just like that. you need ot know waht kind of defenses it has, security, the opposing forces - you can't even tell if capturing it is a feasable plan AT ALL. What if the base reactor was incapable of triggering that pulse? That then?
So I really don't understand your point at all. You want TIM to give you a non-existing plan to capture the base based on nothing, when he didn't give you any plan to blow it up before that either?
And yes, practical concerns are in fact, very relevant. You've been atrributing nefarious motives to TIM's late reveal of hte plan, when what he did is compeltley normal for anyone to do.
Your now arguing semantics, whether stopping the reapers is called a plan, statement of intent or goal is irrelevant, for the basis of this discussion we've been calling it a plan, to change it now just derails the point.
We go through the relay with no specific data whatsoever other than a general plan of stopping the collectors, the specifics of that plan are revealed only once we go through the relay. It is precisely for this reason that your argument that a different general plan to capture the base couldn't have existed because of the lack of that specific data is wrong imo.
What i've been trying to disprove is the notion that a plan/goal to capture the base couldn't have existed until we had the specifics of that plan would also be true for the stated goal of stopping the reapers, since we also don't have those specifics at the time either.
The specifics of either plan come later, the mere lack of those specifics does not make it possible for one to exist and preclude the other from existing also, which was your original argument.
Considering TIM keeps info to himself until it suits him, its also possible that his ultimate goal was to capture the base all along, his reveal could off course simply be because he didn't have the specifics of that plan until analysis of the data was complete, it could also have been because like he's shown to you previously, he tells you things when he wants, to suit his own purposes.
Where do I get those? Because Cerberus is a small organization, that's where.
If Cerberus attacks during the reaper attack, yet, ti's more of a problem then. However, you'll be acing indoctrinated resitance one way or another AND that holds true for ANY potential ally you recruit.
What about the Rachni? Or Geth? Anyone cna turn on you as soon as the repaers arrive, and those would be a far greater threat than Cerberus.
So I ask you - how do you justify those decision, if you yourself claim you can't take any risks???
In me1 we're shown cerberus as nothing more than an annoyance, by me2 our understanding of them is completely different, they are in fact a well funded, resourceful organisation that's better connected and much larger than anything in me1 would have led us to believe. We're then given additional info that supposedly tells us the level of that funding and the size of the operation.
Imo experience with them can lead you to question whether or not the info you received so far is completely accurate, i've used Metagaming to prove that this may not indeed be the case, but your own experience's can lead you to conclude that what your told may in fact not be the complete truth.
So while on the face of it you can come to the conclussion that cerberus is a small organisation based on the info you get from edi, Metagaming shows this could be inaccurate and your own experiences should imo lead you to question any info you receive until you've seen it proved yourself.
I'm glad you've addressed the issue of when a cerberus attack happens would have a direct bearing on the size of the problem they could present, which was the point i've tried to make to you since the beginning.
In terms of the Rachni or Geth or even the base itself, every decision you make is in the end a judgement call, its based on an assessment of the risk vs. benefits and whether or not you can trust the factions motivations are what they claim they are. All of these choices have inherent risks and in making the choices you make you are taking those risks but in the end they come down to a basic point, trust.
I've said all along that they key in whether or not you keep or destroy the base is imo whether or not you trust cerberus, this is also the same in whether or not you save or kill the Rachni queen or whether or not you rewrite or destroy the geth imo.
Each choice though is a different sceanario, with different facts and info presented to you, making one choice in a certain way doesn't force you to make every single choice in that same way or make the facts behind why a certain choice was made relevant to any of the others, simply because in the end its a judgement call based not only on facts but on trusting the motivations and reasoning behind each faction.
You can kill the rachni queen and keep the base, simply based on trusting cerberus and not the rachni queen, just as you can do the reverse, in the end either, both or none could bite you in the ass.
And your analysis is just plain wrong there..
For reason that many other posters before me have stated numerous time, and probably better than I could.
In your opinion my analysis is wrong, in some other posters opinions it's wrong, in my opinion its not, see again its opinions, which i have no issue with, what i do take issue with is rather than state its as such, you continually state it as if its a fact, which it isn't, its your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
I can see the reaosn why you came to those conclusions.
They just happen to be the wrong reasons.
I can see why you think they are the wrong reasons though your reasons behind why they're wrong are wrong, but then your perfectly entitled to be wrong, after all your on a streak and we wouldn't want you to break it by being right
Modifié par alperez, 09 août 2011 - 08:50 .
Retour en haut
You ain't wrong there...
