3618 réponses à ce sujet

[GunMoth]

Also, I agree that the citadel needs to be trashed. Its just too convenient for anyone to want to leave. Imagine if you found an abandoned mansion FO' FREE that had its own set of maids. And you didn't have to pay utilities. I wouldn't want to leave. :X

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

So....Citadel=Yin Omega=Yang.

Balance.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No they didn't. Tehy knew NOTHING except that where is possibly was. That's not nearly enough for any plan.
How the hell do you plan a cpture wihout knowing anything about the defenses?
They didn't even have a plan on how to destroy it (which is way simpler b.t.w.) untill after they scanned it.

Exactly how do you invision that to happen? Give me an example of a viable capture plan wihout knowing anything about the base.

Listen to Mordin after you've located the Collector base after doing the data mining on their ship.

The possibility of using a radiation pulse (which is something I didn't even know we had, by the way) would've been good to know about before we went through the relay. Then we could've planned an attack route to that specific spot after EDI scanned the base and before going in there and start guessing where we should go to find the prisoners.

And that's precisely my point.
Without the base plans and knowing more about it you CAN'T know if the radiation pulse would even work.
Do you remember - you tweaked the reactor to achieve that. If you don't know how the reactor works or if it's even compatible with the devices you have, you really can't make such a plan.

[Someone With Mass]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

So....Citadel=Yin Omega=Yang.

Balance.

Better than letting all the mercs and crime lords live on the Citadel.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Yeah, for drug and slave trafficking.

Which is the Omega equivalent of the Citadel's trading market and servant services.

......
In any regard, don't trash the Citadel, figure out how it works instead.

Exactly. Figure out how it works. Methinks we're going to need to activate it as a mass relay.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

You would think there would be a way to track the keepers,not probing them or whatever but follow one with small drones,I'm sure by then there would be drones the size of insects.

[alperez]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Quit lying your ass off.
You got into this argument arguing that TIM HAD a plan and didn't want to share it.
Now you change it into Tim just wanted to capture it, but didn't have a plan yet".

And no, this wasn't a possiblity at all. It was a impossiblity, and I allready explained why. There is no general plan worthy of mention in the first place and there CAN'T be one.

[/quote]

I got into this argument to disprove your assertion that Tim could not have had such a plan because the specific data required did not exist, I haven't changed my position on this once, re-read my posts and this is clearly spelt out.

I've argued consistently that TIM could have had a General plan to capture the base and could have kept that information to himself until he decided to reveal it when he did, not that he did have this plan but that he could have had this plan.

So when you accuse someone of lying at least try to get your facts straight.
[quote]

Matgaming that DOESN'T illustrate hte point.
[/quote]

So knowing that Cerberus have more resources/troops than you continually claim doesn't illustrate that perhaps your assertion is incorrect, in other words blind refusal to accept anything that contradicts your view illustrates your view in correct.

"ah cerberus i've dismissed that claim"
[quote]

No it doesn't. I means nothing of the sort.
You know what it means? It menas the devs' want more enemies on the levels, that's what it means.

You do realise that having a thousand soldiers in a not a great power? Not even on a single planet, not even in a single country. And especially not on a galactic scale.

And yes, we do have numbers given by EDI, yet you insist that those are incorrect. If you want to argue that way, then everything said by everyone can be incorrect.
[/quote]
 
Yes it means the devs want more enemies on the levels, it also means they explain somewhat where these enemies have come from, but either way it still means there are more enemies than you claim there are, which really is the point.

Again of course its not a great power on its own, but with advanced tech against weaker opposition the power they weild becomes inherently more powerful.

I insist that in game we've been told things at first by a variety of sources that later turn out to be not complete info or the complete story, so why should we accept EDI's version as complete gospel, why can it not turn out to be incorrect or incomplete information?

Considering what we see with cerberus has changed from me1 to me2 it stands to reason that it could change in me3 and that what we thought we knew about them, is not the complete story.

[quote]

I don't see any discrepency between ME1 and ME2. Cerberus in both is a rougle Black Ops organization.
[/quote]

So the level of resources, reach and influence, the number of people working for cerberus, there ability to create a new normandy, these are things that the me1 cerberus seemed capable of (given exactly the information you had on them in me1 and nothing else) and you don't see where there could be a discrepancy.
[quote]

Bigger and better resourced than ME1 would led you to believe? Not really. I havn't seen anything in ME1 that suggest that they are poor and without resources. Even in ME1 they had several bases.
We see more of the Cerberus in ME2, and from a different angle, but what we see isn't incosistent with ME1.
[/quote]

Cerberus in me1 are shown to have a couple of operations, a couple of really limited bases and maybe some reach galactically, in me2 there expanded upon and taking into something that your perception of them in me1 really couldn't have imagined based on the limited info you have of them at the time.

For lack of a better word they look no more resourceful or connected than any generic merc outfit in me1, its only when its expanded upon in me2 that your shown this perception to be incorrect, or were you able to gaze in your crystal ball and use your logical anaylsis to come up with your own perception that fits comfortably with what your arguing.

[quote]

I can trust averyone to want to survive.
I can trust people to do what they have been doing so far non-stop.
Reapers really don't give anyone a choice in the matter at all. Remeber Vigil? No offer of surrender was ever given.
[/quote]

I can trust people to survive even if their survival means mine or someone else's is not important.

I can trust that people have reasons they do things that may not be immediately apparent to me.

The problem is that while cerberus may want to survive and while they did in fact help with the collectors greatly, i don't know if their survival means they will do everything to defeat the reapers or that they will be willing to sell everyone else out in order to survive.

What i do know is that if TIM feels its beneficial to him that a race is sacrificed or that Shepard is sacrificed he would do that in a heartbeat, which could mean he may sell me out sometime in the future, not exactly the best kind of ally to have and certainly not one i should trust.

We know what the reapers will do is certain, what isn't certain is the actions that others will do, which is why trust becomes such an important issue.


[quote]

If you claim that risk prevention is of outmost importnace, then yes. Yes you have.
[/quote]

I don't claim that, i claim handing the base over to an organisation i distrust is a risk i'm not prepared to take.

[quote][
A highly emotional decision, as it ignores the potential devastating consequences. Concequences far worse than anything Cerberus can do. So why do you trust her? Based on what?
Because if trust is suddenly NOT a main factor, then you are indeed conflicting yourself and are showing a double-standard. If trust is rellevant for Cerberus, but not here, you got a problem.
[/quote]

Again emotion has to play a part, when faced with dooming a species to extinction based not upon the actions of the member of that species your speaking to but the actions of that species in the past, it becomes an emotional issue as well as a logical one.

I don't ignore the potential consequences, i'm faced with a certainty in my actions and a possibility in the consequences of those actions, If i kill the queen i'm dooming her species to extinction, if i let her live i'm taking a risk that she will repeat the actions of her ancestors, one is a defintive action with no return the other is a possible outcome that's unknown.

As for why i trust her, i trust the explanation she gives me as to why they did what they did and why it won't happen again, i trust that even despite the fact that she could be lying to me to save her own ass, nothing she tells me can be proved to be an untruth at that point, she doesn't tell me part of the story and i later find out she's kept info from me, she tells me everything and at that point i have no reason to distrust her.

So yes trust is the reason in the end i let her live and its also the reasoning i use behind my base choice.
[quote]

And such important decisions should not be made on an emotinal basis. With the responsiblity Shep has, decisions should be focused on the benefit to the galaxy.

The Rachii are an exinct race, brought back by an experiment gone wrong. One could argue if they even are real Rachnii or if bringing them bakc is the right thing to do. But that's beside the point.

The difference between the 2 choices is irrelevant, because the crux of the matter remains the same. The dangers and benefits involved and how it would influence the galaxy.
[/quote]

Shepard is human not a robot, emotions will play a part in the choices because of that very fact,(not to mention the fact that you playing that role have your own emotions also).

This isn't a maths problem it cant' be solved simply by logistical analysis and being looked at with dispassion, whether you like it or not emotion plays the largest part in any choice you make, if you like someone your more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, if you dislike someone your less likely, you may try to argue that's not the case but in reality it is.

When making your choices, no matter how emotionally detached you think you are, even on a subconcious level your emotions are working with or against you.

If your a win at all costs personality where winning is all that matters or an abrasive person who always needs to be right then you will make different choices then someone who is the complete oppostite of you, both of you may claim your making your choices based on logical analysis, but in the end its actualy emotion that drives how you choose.

The difference between the 2 choices is that while both can have a benefit vs, risk argument, only in one does not taking the risk mean dooming a species to extinction, Whatever you decide in regards to the base, TIM lives either way, not the same with the rachni queen, which is why the choice's can't be compared.

[quote]


Even tough it makes sense for Legion to lie to you?
And TIM and Cerberus? When did they lie? There's only one place where TIM didn't tell youeverything, and he had good resons for it, so its' a moot point.
[/quote]

It doesn't matter if it makes sense or not for Legion to lie to me, the simple fact is that when making the choice i have no evidence that he may be lying, i may think he could be, but i can't say for definite that he is.

Again it doesn't matter the reasoning behind why TIM doesn't tell Shepard the complete truth, that in itself is the moot part of the point, its the simple fact that he holds information back because he deems the reasons he does so good.

So what else is he holding back and for why and can i trust that when he tells me something he isn't holding something else back for more reasons he deems important.

That's where the difference lies, TIM's been shown to act a certain way which can lead you to question every act he makes, Legion at this point has not.

[quote]
Of course you dont' have counter-explaned with the Rachnii queen. She only talked to you ONCE.

But the point is if someone lied to you even once, then you can never trust them? Regardless of what they do?

So agian, Cerberus actively helps you fight the Reapers. Tim holds back one piece of info from you (for a god reason). Cerberus continues to help you. And suddenly they can never be trusted?
[/quote]

Yes she only talked to me once, she tells me some info that i may have already gotten on my own which tallies with what she tells me and since i have nothing else to compare it against, i must trust what she tells me to be the truth until its shown otherwise, which is precisely the point, at that moment i make my choice i have no info to claim what she's telling me isn't the full truth, so i trust her or i don't.

Cerberus helps me for what seems to be a genuine reason to fight the collectors and stop the reapers, everything the tell me seems to indicate that they are on my side and i should trust them, until that one moment when TIM proves he holds information back to suit himself.

You claim its for a good reason and TIm certainly puts a spin on it that makes that out to be possibly the case.

However, since the reasons behind what Cerberus is doing is explained to me by TIm and since i've now found out that Tim will keep info to himself and not tell me the full story for reasons he deems good, then i have every right to question whether or not everything Tim's told me is the full story.

Your told we do this because by someone who you know doesn't always tell you the complete story, should you accept that they were only not telling you the complete story in that singular example, or should you question just how much of what they've told is actually the full story?


[quote]

TIM has witheld information ONCE (for a good reason) and you condemn Cerberus forever? Bias much?

Their handling of Repaer tech? Not worse thany anyone else really - you can't blame them for fallingt o indoctrination and then ignore than everyone else also seems to fall to it, regardless of race or affilation (Saren, Benezia, Teh asari researcher, alliance scientists, Salarians, etc..)
[/quote]

If i can't trust them to be completely honest with me, how can i trust they are ever being honest.

Apart from the fact that each of those cases should actually give me more pause to consider the use of the tech itself, they aren't actually relevant since i'm asked to hand over something that could cause the same problems not to any of those people but to cerberus, so its their handling of the tech that really is the issue.

[quote]

The "large possiblity" is rooted in the idea that TIM wants to TAKE OVER THE WROLD (Of course!!!!) and holds that more important than survival of humanity.
In itself that is a redicolous assertion.
[/quote]

The large possibility is rooted in the idea that TIM's idea of human dominance doesn't quite fit into just putting humanity into a dominant economic and political ascendency but that in actuality may mean something much more dangerous.

I'm not supposed to worry about just the survival of humanity, i'm supposed to worry about everyones survival, if in ensuring they survive one threat, i'm then leaving them open to another, i'm doing a ****** poor job of it imo.
[quote]

The base WILL yield technology and knowledge. There's no IF about it. It is impossible to study advanced technology and learn nothing.
You concern is if  that knowledge would be use against the galaxy (which is tied to TIM taking over the wrold bit).
Yet the danger of the entire galaxy fallign wihtout that knowledge is something you cheerfully overlook.
[/quote]

The base MAY yield tech and knowledge, not will, may, its quite possible in studying that advanced technology like in studying other examples of reaper tech that the outcome is not an increased tech and knowledge benefit, but another lost science team with nothing to show for their research.

My concern is that, we don't know what harmful consequences studying the base may also yeild and that in studying the base we may in fact unleash something that could be used against the galaxy.

Whether or not TIM himself would use what the base may give him against the rest of the galaxy by choice or because the effects of studying the base cause that choice to be taking away from him, it still amounts to the same thing, a risk, one i'm not sure is worth taking.

Ah back to destroying the base risks the galaxy falling, i miss the good ol' days.

[quote]

And you seem to forget that you know where the base is and how to get it, and you have EDI and 2 high-ranking Cerberus officers and the Alliacne on your side should Cerberus get upity.
And that helping you and everyone else IS in the best interest of Cerberus and Humanity.

The chances of Cerberus back-stabbing the galaxy on purpose are infintesimal (as again, it is agasint theri own interest). The only realistic danger is indoctrination, but in that case it wouldn't matter to whom you hand the base over.
[/quote]

You continually overlook the fact that with the reapers on our doorstep, we may not have the time or resources to re-take the base from cerberus or that even by that stage the info and tech the base yielded may not be on the base itself.

The chances of cerberus not behaving like cerberus are even less and given what we know about them, i still argue that handing them the base is a risk i'm not prepared to take.

As for indoctrination being the only realistic danger, thereby making it not matter who i hand the base over to, considering i have only one choice in the matter, that really is a moot point.

[quote]

Well, I can distance myself far more than you in any case.

[/quote]

You are Lotion, hear you roar.

Modifié par alperez, 11 août 2011 - 09:10 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]alperez wrote...
I got into this argument to disprove your assertion that Tim could not have had such a plan because the specific data required did not exist, I haven't changed my position on this once, re-read my posts and this is clearly spelt out.

I've argued consistently that TIM could have had a General plan to capture the base and could have kept that information to himself until he decided to reveal it when he did, not that he did have this plan but that he could have had this plan.

So when you accuse someone of lying at least try to get your facts straight.[/quote]

And I'm telling you that he couldn't have had such plan. It's an impossiblity.

Unless he made several billions plans for all possible premutations of the stations internal makup, defenses and technology.




[quote][quote]

Matgaming that DOESN'T illustrate hte point.
[/quote]

So knowing that Cerberus have more resources/troops than you continually claim doesn't illustrate that perhaps your assertion is incorrect, in other words blind refusal to accept anything that contradicts your view illustrates your view in correct.

"ah cerberus i've dismissed that claim"[/quote]

I don't refuse to accept the 40% number of enemis thing. I refuse to accept that it in any way proves your point. Because it doesn't.
The 40% number is NOT a fluff fact, it's a gameplay number.



[quote][quote]
No it doesn't. I means nothing of the sort.
You know what it means? It menas the devs' want more enemies on the levels, that's what it means.

You do realise that having a thousand soldiers in a not a great power? Not even on a single planet, not even in a single country. And especially not on a galactic scale.

And yes, we do have numbers given by EDI, yet you insist that those are incorrect. If you want to argue that way, then everything said by everyone can be incorrect.
[/quote]
 
Yes it means the devs want more enemies on the levels, it also means they explain somewhat where these enemies have come from, but either way it still means there are more enemies than you claim there are, which really is the point.[/quote]

No, it doesn't explain anything. Again, you keep ignoring some of my questions - where to DA2 abominations and mages come from? There's FAR more of them in the game than there should ever be, fluff-wise.
Gamepaly mechanics and numbers are not really applicable in these discussions..

Unless you also want to argue that men falling from the sky and materializing in mid-air is DA universe canon too?


[quote]
Again of course its not a great power on its own, but with advanced tech against weaker opposition the power they weild becomes inherently more powerful.[/quote]

What weaker opposition? Every faction in the universe is a thousand times more powerfull than them.


[quote]
I insist that in game we've been told things at first by a variety of sources that later turn out to be not complete info or the complete story, so why should we accept EDI's version as complete gospel, why can it not turn out to be incorrect or incomplete information?[/quote]

EDI is a super-advanced computer. Unless you have some canon proof that she is wrong.....




[quote][quote]
I don't see any discrepency between ME1 and ME2. Cerberus in both is a rougle Black Ops organization.
[/quote]

So the level of resources, reach and influence, the number of people working for cerberus, there ability to create a new normandy, these are things that the me1 cerberus seemed capable of (given exactly the information you had on them in me1 and nothing else) and you don't see where there could be a discrepancy.
[quote]

Bigger and better resourced than ME1 would led you to believe? Not really. I havn't seen anything in ME1 that suggest that they are poor and without resources. Even in ME1 they had several bases.
We see more of the Cerberus in ME2, and from a different angle, but what we see isn't incosistent with ME1.
[/quote]

Cerberus in me1 are shown to have a couple of operations, a couple of really limited bases and maybe some reach galactically, in me2 there expanded upon and taking into something that your perception of them in me1 really couldn't have imagined based on the limited info you have of them at the time.

For lack of a better word they look no more resourceful or connected than any generic merc outfit in me1, its only when its expanded upon in me2 that your shown this perception to be incorrect, or were you able to gaze in your crystal ball and use your logical anaylsis to come up with your own perception that fits comfortably with what your arguing.[/quote]

There's no contradiction between ME1 and ME2  regarding Cerberus(aside form Cerberus using uniforms now)
You're just seeing more from Cerberus and interacting with their elite

Also learn the difference between appearance and fact. We are never TOLD the size and resource of Cerberus. We only had to infer from what we've seen. appearances can decieve.
In ME2, we are told explicitly about the size and resurces of Cerberus.


[quote]
I can trust people to survive even if their survival means mine or someone else's is not important.

I can trust that people have reasons they do things that may not be immediately apparent to me.

The problem is that while cerberus may want to survive and while they did in fact help with the collectors greatly, i don't know if their survival means they will do everything to defeat the reapers or that they will be willing to sell everyone else out in order to survive.[/quote]

This holds true for EVERYONE else to boot. How do you know Turains would sell humanity out to save their race?


[quote]
What i do know is that if TIM feels its beneficial to him that a race is sacrificed or that Shepard is sacrificed he would do that in a heartbeat, which could mean he may sell me out sometime in the future, not exactly the best kind of ally to have and certainly not one i should trust.

We know what the reapers will do is certain, what isn't certain is the actions that others will do, which is why trust becomes such an important issue.
[quote]

Reapers don't offer surrender.

And seems to me like the Alliance would sacrifice you. The Council would sacrifice you. And yet somehow, you want ot hold Cerberus to a higher standard.....




I'm too tired to look at your other stuff now...

[Someone With Mass]

Actually, we're only told that Cerberus has 150 operatives, like Miranda and three cells.

That doesn't tell anyone anything about their total number.

Judging by this:

Cerberus Centurion: *NEW*

Cerberus Centurions are frontline tacticians that fight alongside their soldiers. These squadron leaders carry out high-level instructions laid out by the Illusive Man. How the Illusive Man recruited and trained such a large number of top-line battlefield commanders is a worrying mystery. Cerberus, once comprised of small, covert cells of agents, is now a burgeoning and unconcealed threat to the galaxy. In the face of the immediate Reaper threat, Alliance Intelligence has scuttled their attempts to infiltrate Cerberus to find out how the Illusive Man managed to quickly swell his organization’s ranks. The only useful intel gathered on the Centurions are their armaments. Each Centurion carries a modified M-96 Mattock that launches smoke grenades to blind their targets, making their enemies vulnerable to vicious crossfire they can no longer see.

TIM has the means to raise an army in a short amount of time.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

"I refuse to accept anything that could imply I am not right."

[Homebound]

Cerberus is ebil! Eeebbiiilll!!

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


And I'm telling you that he couldn't have had such plan. It's an impossiblity.

Unless he made several billions plans for all possible premutations of the stations internal makup, defenses and technology.

This must be your safety fall back position, he could not have a plan because he couldn't know specifics which would mean he would have had to create multiple plans based on those specifics.

Once again i'll try and say this as clearly as i can, stopping the collectors is a general plan based on no specific information whatsoever other than going through the relay, for TIM not to have also had a general plan of capturing the base and keeping the tech/info would make him the most short sighted person in history.

He doesn't need specifics until he decides to go with that plan, that doesn't preclude that plan from existing in the first place.

I don't refuse to accept the 40% number of enemis thing. I refuse to accept that it in any way proves your point. Because it doesn't.
The 40% number is NOT a fluff fact, it's a gameplay number.

We're playing a game, all we bloody well have are gameplay numbers, the simple fact is that Cerberus are better equipped and have more forces available to them in me3, than the info you have about them in me2 would suggest.

No, it doesn't explain anything. Again, you keep ignoring some of my questions - where to DA2 abominations and mages come from? There's FAR more of them in the game than there should ever be, fluff-wise.
Gamepaly mechanics and numbers are not really applicable in these discussions..

Unless you also want to argue that men falling from the sky and materializing in mid-air is DA universe canon too?

Firstly dragon age abominatins and mages are related to cerberus forces in me3 exactly how?

Secondly, how can gameplay mechanics and numbers not be applicable in a discussion about a game?

Thirdly, as long as they explain in game where these extra forces came from, then there isn't any discrepancy, dragon age is fantasy set in a fantasy universe, most of what can happen in it isn't explained in real world terms, mass effect thus far has at least tried to keep some sembelance of logic in explaining why x is x.

Your dealing with a scenario presented to you in a game which follows its own rules and canon, not a reality war sim where everything must follow real world limitiations, so when making any choice, your choice is based on the parameters of the info your given and the situations your presented with and the rules of that world and not your own.

What weaker opposition? Every faction in the universe is a thousand times more powerfull than them.

Your deliberately missing the point i've made, with advanced tech and against weaker opposition, their strength increases inherently in line with how advanced the tech the possess is and how weaker the opposition they face may be.

Cerberus can't beat the alliance in a straight fight, but if they have a massive advance in tech and are facing an alliance that's almost been destroyed by the reapers, the threat they pose is much bigger.

EDI is a super-advanced computer. Unless you have some canon proof that she is wrong.....

I didn't say she is, i said its possible that she could be.

We're told things in game from a variety of sources that seem completely credible at the time, only to later find out that we're not being given the complete and total story.

So why is it not possible that all EDI's accessed is part of cerberus's files and the info she gives us is only part of the story, which when placed with info we receive later fleshes that story out further.

There's no contradiction between ME1 and ME2  regarding Cerberus(aside form Cerberus using uniforms now)
You're just seeing more from Cerberus and interacting with their elite

Also learn the difference between appearance and fact. We are never TOLD the size and resource of Cerberus. We only had to infer from what we've seen. appearances can decieve.
In ME2, we are told explicitly about the size and resurces of Cerberus.

In learning more information about any organisation you would see that organisation being fleshed out, your intial impressions of either what that organisation's size or resources or goals may have been would change base on this new information. So in a sense it is contradicting itself, but that contradiction is being explained to you so it doesn't seem that way.

I did say Infer which your now stating yourself, we're never told the size and resources of cerberus in me1 but the impression your given of them would not lead you to how they're shown in me2, based on that impression and the info you have at that time.

Considering in me1 they show cerberus in one light, which later is expanded upon and takes them in a direction the info from me1 may not have led you to believe, until your shown them by working more closely with them in me2.

Then why is it so hard to accept that the info your given in me2 may also not be the complete and full info regarding cerberus, that this info will be revealed to you in me3 which may make your impressions of them in me2 wrong.

We're given a source which states this is cerberus, this is the strength and these are the resources they have available to them, but again whats to say the sources information must be completely correct.

Would it not make sense that the only person who actually knows the full extent of the resources and strength of cerberus is TIM himself and that all EDI accesses was just part of the full story?

Or does TIM keep all his files in one place, puts access to those files in the hands of an AI, puts in blocks to that info in the AI programming that an outsider could if they wish access with not much difficulty.

Isn't misinformation a large part of what rogue black op's organisations would be good at.

This holds true for EVERYONE else to boot. How do you know Turains would sell humanity out to save their race?

I don't, but where do i get the chance to decide if they may do so, at what point is it shown to me how they operate,
With cerberus i'm shown who they are, what they stand for, what kind of an organisation they may be and how they handled certain situations, i'm then given an opportunity to trust them or not, i choose the latter based on my understanding of all these things, could i be wrong of course i could, but its not something i've been shown with as much detail as any other faction.

Reapers don't offer surrender.

And seems to me like the Alliance would sacrifice you. The Council would sacrifice you. And yet somehow, you want ot hold Cerberus to a higher standard.....

 The reapers are a known entity, what they will do is pretty much guaranteed, no surrender total destruction, you know that going in, other factions you can only base on your experience of them.

While the council may sacrifice me or the alliance may sacrifice me i have no info to suggest they would at this point, i can assume they would, i can speculate they would but i can't guarantee they would.

With cerberus i can gurantee that TIM will sacrifice whatever he deems to be neccessary to do what he feels is right, i can guarantee that he will do this regardless of what anyone else may think or regardless of consensus, which is why i hold them to a higher standard because i can't control the actions he may take and i know that he will take those actions irrespective of whether or not i agree with them.

I'm too tired to look at your other stuff now...

No worries, but at this point we're going in circles, so feel free not to reply at all if you don't want to, or we can continue to disagree for the laughs.

Modifié par alperez, 12 août 2011 - 05:15 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]alperez wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


And I'm telling you that he couldn't have had such plan. It's an impossiblity.

Unless he made several billions plans for all possible premutations of the stations internal makup, defenses and technology.
[/quote]

This must be your safety fall back position, he could not have a plan because he couldn't know specifics which would mean he would have had to create multiple plans based on those specifics.

Once again i'll try and say this as clearly as i can, stopping the collectors is a general plan based on no specific information whatsoever other than going through the relay, for TIM not to have also had a general plan of capturing the base and keeping the tech/info would make him the most short sighted person in history.

He doesn't need specifics until he decides to go with that plan, that doesn't preclude that plan from existing in the first place.[/quote]

"Capture the base" is NOT a workable plan. Yes, you need to have dmans speciific. There's no point in telling anyone (Shep) to capture or blow up the base when you have no damn idea if there even is a base there or how to do it in the first place.

"Stoping the Collectors" is also not proper plan. While TIM told you to do that, even details of THAT "plan" were added and developed as new information would come in.

So what the hell is your point here?

You keep claiming TIM's actions were suspicious because he didn't tell you his plan to capture the base, when I keep showing you that there was no usable plan, and there coudlnt' have been one.

THERE IS NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT TIM NOT TELLING YOU HOW TO CAPTURE THE BASE.




[quote][quote]
I don't refuse to accept the 40% number of enemis thing. I refuse to accept that it in any way proves your point. Because it doesn't.
The 40% number is NOT a fluff fact, it's a gameplay number.
[/quote]

We're playing a game, all we bloody well have are gameplay numbers, the simple fact is that Cerberus are better equipped and have more forces available to them in me3, than the info you have about them in me2 would suggest.
[/quote]

No.



[quote][quote]
No, it doesn't explain anything. Again, you keep ignoring some of my questions - where to DA2 abominations and mages come from? There's FAR more of them in the game than there should ever be, fluff-wise.
Gamepaly mechanics and numbers are not really applicable in these discussions..

Unless you also want to argue that men falling from the sky and materializing in mid-air is DA universe canon too?
[/quote]

Firstly dragon age abominatins and mages are related to cerberus forces in me3 exactly how?

Secondly, how can gameplay mechanics and numbers not be applicable in a discussion about a game?

Thirdly, as long as they explain in game where these extra forces came from, then there isn't any discrepancy, dragon age is fantasy set in a fantasy universe, most of what can happen in it isn't explained in real world terms, mass effect thus far has at least tried to keep some sembelance of logic in explaining why x is x.

Your dealing with a scenario presented to you in a game which follows its own rules and canon, not a reality war sim where everything must follow real world limitiations, so when making any choice, your choice is based on the parameters of the info your given and the situations your presented with and the rules of that world and not your own.[/quote]

They are related because they are both Bio games and they both show game deisgn practices and the discrepency between gameplay and fluff that are the result of combat design. This is actually very common in many games, where in order to make the combat longer and more challenging, more enemeis are thrown agaisnt the player that there really should be.

And you are trying to dodge really answering the queston by sainyg "DA is fantasy, nothing has to be explained".
No. It has to.
Either explain the discrepency and the disparity between gameplay/combat design and fluff or GTFO.





[quote][quote]
What weaker opposition? Every faction in the universe is a thousand times more powerfull than them.
[/quote]

Your deliberately missing the point i've made, with advanced tech and against weaker opposition, their strength increases inherently in line with how advanced the tech the possess is and how weaker the opposition they face may be.[/quote]

Only up to a point. Cerberus is stil lvery limited, even with advanced tech.

[quote]
Cerberus can't beat the alliance in a straight fight, but if they have a massive advance in tech and are facing an alliance that's almost been destroyed by the reapers, the threat they pose is much bigger.[/quote]

that applies to everyone.





[quote][quote]
EDI is a super-advanced computer. Unless you have some canon proof that she is wrong.....
[/quote]
I didn't say she is, i said its possible that she could be.

We're told things in game from a variety of sources that seem completely credible at the time, only to later find out that we're not being given the complete and total story.

So why is it not possible that all EDI's accessed is part of cerberus's files and the info she gives us is only part of the story, which when placed with info we receive later fleshes that story out further.[/quote]

Well, then, I say it's possible that Sheppard is actually dead and everything in the game is not really cannon because tha'ts really a product of his dying mind.

Gah. It's sad that you have to resort to this cheap tactic or "but X could be wrong", without actually having anything in the game that suggests it might be.



[quote][quote]
There's no contradiction between ME1 and ME2  regarding Cerberus(aside form Cerberus using uniforms now)
You're just seeing more from Cerberus and interacting with their elite

Also learn the difference between appearance and fact. We are never TOLD the size and resource of Cerberus. We only had to infer from what we've seen. appearances can decieve.
In ME2, we are told explicitly about the size and resurces of Cerberus.

[/quote]

In learning more information about any organisation you would see that organisation being fleshed out, your intial impressions of either what that organisation's size or resources or goals may have been would change base on this new information. So in a sense it is contradicting itself, but that contradiction is being explained to you so it doesn't seem that way.

I did say Infer which your now stating yourself, we're never told the size and resources of cerberus in me1 but the impression your given of them would not lead you to how they're shown in me2, based on that impression and the info you have at that time.[/quote]

It's not contradicting itself. Quite trying to butcher the meaning of words to support your crumbling arguments.

No, I wans't at all surprised by the size of Cerberus in ME2. We aready know from ME1 that they are a rouge Black Ops group, and that they probably still have many ties with the Alliance.


[quote][quote]
This holds true for EVERYONE else to boot. How do you know Turains would sell humanity out to save their race?
[/quote]

I don't, but where do i get the chance to decide if they may do so, at what point is it shown to me how they operate,
With cerberus i'm shown who they are, what they stand for, what kind of an organisation they may be and how they handled certain situations, i'm then given an opportunity to trust them or not, i choose the latter based on my understanding of all these things, could i be wrong of course i could, but its not something i've been shown with as much detail as any other faction.[/quote]

Governments and politicians. You are shown how they operate. Both the Council and the Alliance are self-serving as any nation on this planet. You are so obsessed with the tiny Cerberus, yet the potential for danger and betrayl by far more powerfull factions escapes you.




[quote]
While the council may sacrifice me or the alliance may sacrifice me i have no info to suggest they would at this point, i can assume they would, i can speculate they would but i can't guarantee they would.

With cerberus i can gurantee that TIM will sacrifice whatever he deems to be neccessary to do what he feels is right, i can guarantee that he will do this regardless of what anyone else may think or regardless of consensus, which is why i hold them to a higher standard because i can't control the actions he may take and i know that he will take those actions irrespective of whether or not i agree with them.[/quote]

Lol...politicians won't sacrifice you to save their asses or their country? Wake up.
The Alliance basicly is willing to sacrifice Sheppard (the trail). The Council would sacrifice you if it was in their interest.
Guarantee?
Everyone does what they think is necessary.
The Council would sacrifice Shep (irrispectively weather you agree with them or not) if they though it was worth it. . Rulers of nations won't ask for your blessing. Can't believe how naive you are....

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Actually, we're only told that Cerberus has 150 operatives, like Miranda and three cells.

That doesn't tell anyone anything about their total number.

Judging by this:

Cerberus Centurion: *NEW*

Cerberus Centurions are frontline tacticians that fight alongside their soldiers. These squadron leaders carry out high-level instructions laid out by the Illusive Man. How the Illusive Man recruited and trained such a large number of top-line battlefield commanders is a worrying mystery. Cerberus, once comprised of small, covert cells of agents, is now a burgeoning and unconcealed threat to the galaxy. In the face of the immediate Reaper threat, Alliance Intelligence has scuttled their attempts to infiltrate Cerberus to find out how the Illusive Man managed to quickly swell his organization’s ranks. The only useful intel gathered on the Centurions are their armaments. Each Centurion carries a modified M-96 Mattock that launches smoke grenades to blind their targets, making their enemies vulnerable to vicious crossfire they can no longer see.

TIM has the means to raise an army in a short amount of time.

There goes the setting......
Of course, it was already started to sink with the "teminator reaper" and hte redicolous goo. Final nail in the coffin for me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]alperez wrote...
[quote]
If you claim that risk prevention is of outmost importnace, then yes. Yes you have.
[/quote]

I don't claim that, i claim handing the base over to an organisation i distrust is a risk i'm not prepared to take.[/quote]

"The situation is so dire that I cannot afford to take risks". .Or what that SWM?
I think it was you - your arguments are usually of much better quality than his.



[quote][quote]
Again emotion has to play a part, when faced with dooming a species to extinction based not upon the actions of the member of that species your speaking to but the actions of that species in the past, it becomes an emotional issue as well as a logical one.

I don't ignore the potential consequences, i'm faced with a certainty in my actions and a possibility in the consequences of those actions, If i kill the queen i'm dooming her species to extinction, if i let her live i'm taking a risk that she will repeat the actions of her ancestors, one is a defintive action with no return the other is a possible outcome that's unknown.

As for why i trust her, i trust the explanation she gives me as to why they did what they did and why it won't happen again, i trust that even despite the fact that she could be lying to me to save her own ass, nothing she tells me can be proved to be an untruth at that point, she doesn't tell me part of the story and i later find out she's kept info from me, she tells me everything and at that point i have no reason to distrust her.

So yes trust is the reason in the end i let her live and its also the reasoning i use behind my base choice.
[quote]

And such important decisions should not be made on an emotinal basis. With the responsiblity Shep has, decisions should be focused on the benefit to the galaxy.

The Rachii are an exinct race, brought back by an experiment gone wrong. One could argue if they even are real Rachnii or if bringing them bakc is the right thing to do. But that's beside the point.

The difference between the 2 choices is irrelevant, because the crux of the matter remains the same. The dangers and benefits involved and how it would influence the galaxy.
[/quote]

Shepard is human not a robot, emotions will play a part in the choices because of that very fact,(not to mention the fact that you playing that role have your own emotions also).

This isn't a maths problem it cant' be solved simply by logistical analysis and being looked at with dispassion, whether you like it or not emotion plays the largest part in any choice you make, if you like someone your more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, if you dislike someone your less likely, you may try to argue that's not the case but in reality it is.

When making your choices, no matter how emotionally detached you think you are, even on a subconcious level your emotions are working with or against you.

If your a win at all costs personality where winning is all that matters or an abrasive person who always needs to be right then you will make different choices then someone who is the complete oppostite of you, both of you may claim your making your choices based on logical analysis, but in the end its actualy emotion that drives how you choose.

The difference between the 2 choices is that while both can have a benefit vs, risk argument, only in one does not taking the risk mean dooming a species to extinction, Whatever you decide in regards to the base, TIM lives either way, not the same with the rachni queen, which is why the choice's can't be compared.[/quote]

And you are focusing on the "kill or not kill" difference, while ignoring the risk/reward difference.
The negative consequences of sparing hte Rachnii are wrose then giving Cerberus the CB. The benefits are also smaller in comparison.

Shep killed 300.000 batarians for the safety of the galaxy. And now suddenly, killing a hunderd Rachnii is a great moral dillema in comparison? If you put your own piece of mind ahead of the survival of the galaxy, then yes. I can say that you really can't distance yourself emotinally AT ALL.




[quote][quote]
Of course you dont' have counter-explaned with the Rachnii queen. She only talked to you ONCE.

But the point is if someone lied to you even once, then you can never trust them? Regardless of what they do?

So agian, Cerberus actively helps you fight the Reapers. Tim holds back one piece of info from you (for a good reason). Cerberus continues to help you. And suddenly they can never be trusted?
[/quote]

Yes she only talked to me once, she tells me some info that i may have already gotten on my own which tallies with what she tells me and since i have nothing else to compare it against, i must trust what she tells me to be the truth until its shown otherwise, which is precisely the point, at that moment i make my choice i have no info to claim what she's telling me isn't the full truth, so i trust her or i don't.

Cerberus helps me for what seems to be a genuine reason to fight the collectors and stop the reapers, everything the tell me seems to indicate that they are on my side and i should trust them, until that one moment when TIM proves he holds information back to suit himself.

You claim its for a good reason and TIm certainly puts a spin on it that makes that out to be possibly the case.

However, since the reasons behind what Cerberus is doing is explained to me by TIm and since i've now found out that Tim will keep info to himself and not tell me the full story for reasons he deems good, then i have every right to question whether or not everything Tim's told me is the full story.

Your told we do this because by someone who you know doesn't always tell you the complete story, should you accept that they were only not telling you the complete story in that singular example, or should you question just how much of what they've told is actually the full story?[/quote]

So I was right...witholding a single peice of info ONCE and you doom them forever.

This is utterly redicolous. Reasons behind what Cerberus is doing are explined to you by more than just TIM - everyone working for Cerberus will tell you the same, and their manifesto futher supports this. Or do you now, by default, not trust anyone from Cerberus?




[quote]
TIM has witheld information ONCE (for a good reason) and you condemn Cerberus forever? Bias much?

Their handling of Repaer tech? Not worse thany anyone else really - you can't blame them for fallingt o indoctrination and then ignore than everyone else also seems to fall to it, regardless of race or affilation (Saren, Benezia, Teh asari researcher, alliance scientists, Salarians, etc..)
[/quote]

If i can't trust them to be completely honest with me, how can i trust they are ever being honest.

Apart from the fact that each of those cases should actually give me more pause to consider the use of the tech itself, they aren't actually relevant since i'm asked to hand over something that could cause the same problems not to any of those people but to cerberus, so its their handling of the tech that really is the issue.[/quote]

What? No friend of yours or family member never lied to you or witheld info even once?
Do you trust anyone then in your life?




[quote][quote]
The "large possiblity" is rooted in the idea that TIM wants to TAKE OVER THE WROLD (Of course!!!!) and holds that more important than survival of humanity.
In itself that is a redicolous assertion.
[/quote]

The large possibility is rooted in the idea that TIM's idea of human dominance doesn't quite fit into just putting humanity into a dominant economic and political ascendency but that in actuality may mean something much more dangerous.

I'm not supposed to worry about just the survival of humanity, i'm supposed to worry about everyones survival, if in ensuring they survive one threat, i'm then leaving them open to another, i'm doing a ****** poor job of it imo.[/quote]

And you have nothing to support that idea. That's the friggin problem. One single sentace and you're ready to doom the man. Judge Dredd is more lenient than you.

And you're supposed to worry abotu the survival of the Galaxy. Period. If no one survives you're doing a even worse job. Not to mantion that any future threat is something you can deal with in the future. And not to mention that Cerberus isn't a big threat anyway.




[quote][quote]
The base WILL yield technology and knowledge. There's no IF about it. It is impossible to study advanced technology and learn nothing.
You concern is if  that knowledge would be use against the galaxy (which is tied to TIM taking over the wrold bit).
Yet the danger of the entire galaxy fallign wihtout that knowledge is something you cheerfully overlook.
[/quote]

The base MAY yield tech and knowledge, not will, may, its quite possible in studying that advanced technology like in studying other examples of reaper tech that the outcome is not an increased tech and knowledge benefit, but another lost science team with nothing to show for their research.

My concern is that, we don't know what harmful consequences studying the base may also yeild and that in studying the base we may in fact unleash something that could be used against the galaxy.[/quote]

Not MAY, WILL.
It's is impossible to study something and NOT gain knowledge. This is techolog,y not some divine monolith that is forever beyond our comprehension!
You may loose some scientists if they get indoctrinatned, but their findings and reports live on.

And you're worried you'll unleash something agaisnt the galaxy? Newsflash - the galaxy is already f****. Nothing you can unleash from that base could ever hope to even remotely match the reapers. It reamin, after all, just one base.
And you need something agaisnt the repaers.

I have asked numerous times for you people to explain how do you plan to defeat the reapers. Not one of you had any plan, or any idea. And then you come in claiming that the base is a risk not worth taking....





[quote][quote]
And you seem to forget that you know where the base is and how to get it, and you have EDI and 2 high-ranking Cerberus officers and the Alliacne on your side should Cerberus get upity.
And that helping you and everyone else IS in the best interest of Cerberus and Humanity.

The chances of Cerberus back-stabbing the galaxy on purpose are infintesimal (as again, it is agasint theri own interest). The only realistic danger is indoctrination, but in that case it wouldn't matter to whom you hand the base over.
[/quote]

You continually overlook the fact that with the reapers on our doorstep, we may not have the time or resources to re-take the base from cerberus or that even by that stage the info and tech the base yielded may not be on the base itself.

The chances of cerberus not behaving like cerberus are even less and given what we know about them, i still argue that handing them the base is a risk i'm not prepared to take.

As for indoctrination being the only realistic danger, thereby making it not matter who i hand the base over to, considering i have only one choice in the matter, that really is a moot point.[/quote]

Yes, you do have the resources. Any forces that does not spare some reasorces to secure a potentialy vital advantage does not even deserve to survive. Remote-detonator anyone? A cruiser or two stationed near?
If you can't spare two cruisers for THAT, you're already dead.

And chances of  discovery in time? Impossible to tell. Different things would require different amount of times. a weapon upgrade or re-calibration or something simpler could be produced rahter fast. Soem vital information on the reapers weakpoints even faster. Completly new weapons or defensive systems? Those would take the longest.
But let's recall - Shep doesn't know when the Reapers will arrive. Could be months. Could be years. Could be decades.

And Cerberus behaving like Cerberus..What's that supposed to mean? You are agaisnt starting from the (wrong) assumption that trying to kill everyone is what Cerberus is about.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"Capture the base" is NOT a workable plan. Yes, you need to have dmans speciific. There's no point in telling anyone (Shep) to capture or blow up the base when you have no damn idea if there even is a base there or how to do it in the first place.

"Stoping the Collectors" is also not proper plan. While TIM told you to do that, even details of THAT "plan" were added and developed as new information would come in.

So what the hell is your point here?

You keep claiming TIM's actions were suspicious because he didn't tell you his plan to capture the base, when I keep showing you that there was no usable plan, and there coudlnt' have been one.

THERE IS NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT TIM NOT TELLING YOU HOW TO CAPTURE THE BASE.

My point is the same as its been from the beginning, neither plan is technically a workable plan because the details required were added in later, but if its the case that stopping the collectors is a plan despite this fact then it is also the case that capturing the base could be a plan for the very same reasons.

If one could exist despite the lack of specific details then so could the other, something you originally claimed could not be true because the specifics of the capture of the base were unavailable.

I've never claimed TIM's actions were suspicious, all i've claimed is that considering he witholds info, it can be argued that he is witholding this plan also, not that he is, but that he could be.

No.

Wow, well thought out and phrased response, so knowing something that conflicts with your understanding of what the situation may be doesn't prove that your understanding of the situation was incorrect and you respond no. or are you disputing that the cerberus we face in me3 is better equipped and has more forces than me2 would have led us to believe.

They are related because they are both Bio games and they both show game deisgn practices and the discrepency between gameplay and fluff that are the result of combat design. This is actually very common in many games, where in order to make the combat longer and more challenging, more enemeis are thrown agaisnt the player that there really should be.

And you are trying to dodge really answering the queston by sainyg "DA is fantasy, nothing has to be explained".
No. It has to.
Either explain the discrepency and the disparity between gameplay/combat design and fluff or GTFO.

 They are 2 seperate games set in 2 seperate universes explained and governed by the rules and setups those universes have shown to be, so they are related only by the fact they are both bioware games and the rules of one have nothing to do with the other.

Mass effect is more reality based even in its setting than DA and because of that how they explain things in ME is always slightly more reality based, so an increased number of cerberus troops or cerberus suddenly having amazingly technologically advanced weaponry will have more basis in fact and explanation than anything that happens in DA.

Even though its by design that there will be more actual cerberus forces in me3, the explantion for why this is the case will more than likely be more reality based than anything DA offers, simply because thats the approach they've taken thus far with the 2 completely different universes.

Only up to a point. Cerberus is stil lvery limited, even with advanced tech.

How much they're limited though is the question, your convinced the limitation is severe, i'm not so sure that will be the case and until we see the conditions as they're presented, you can think one way or another and not be right or wrong.

that applies to everyone.

Indeed it does, but considering the only ones i'm handing over a base that may contain potentially an advantage to Cerberus and not handing that base over to any of the other groups, in terms of this discussion its not relevant.

Well, then, I say it's possible that Sheppard is actually dead and everything in the game is not really cannon because tha'ts really a product of his dying mind.

Gah. It's sad that you have to resort to this cheap tactic or "but X could be wrong", without actually having anything in the game that suggests it might be.

Wow, just wow, way to make yourself look like a complete jerk.

I say we're given information in game from a variety of sources that doesn't always tell the full story, i show an example of this in the specific case of cerberus (which is supposedly what we're discussing) and rather than contradict that claim, you jump on a ridicolous flight of fancy and try to suggest that's what i was doing.

I don't have to shown an example of where its done other than the one i already did considering that this is a specific point we're arguing about.

[

It's not contradicting itself. Quite trying to butcher the meaning of words to support your crumbling arguments.

No, I wans't at all surprised by the size of Cerberus in ME2. We aready know from ME1 that they are a rouge Black Ops group, and that they probably still have many ties with the Alliance.

If your shown something a certain way and then later on your shown its not actually that way its a contradiction,. The fact that this contradiction is then explained in a manner that makes it plausible doesn't take away the fact that it was a contradiction to begin with.

You weren't surprised that the group we saw in me1 would be shown in the scale and size they were in me2 based on the info we're shown in me1, then your a visionary of nostradamus's proportions.

As for my crumbling arguments, well no doubt soon you'll claim you've torn them down and destroyed them which is your SOP when disagreeing with someone.

Governments and politicians. You are shown how they operate. Both the Council and the Alliance are self-serving as any nation on this planet. You are so obsessed with the tiny Cerberus, yet the potential for danger and betrayl by far more powerfull factions escapes you.

In a thead to discuss whether or not handing the base over to cerberus is the right or wrong discussion being obsessed as you put it with tiny cerberus would seem apt.

If this discussion was about the council or the alliance and whether or not i should hand the base over to them, then i would be obsessed with them also, but since its not then the motivations or potential for danger and betrayal by those other factions, have no bearing on whether or not i should hand a base over to cerberus.

Lol...politicians won't sacrifice you to save their asses or their country? Wake up.
The Alliance basicly is willing to sacrifice Sheppard (the trail). The Council would sacrifice you if it was in their interest.
Guarantee?
Everyone does what they think is necessary.
The Council would sacrifice Shep (irrispectively weather you agree with them or not) if they though it was worth it. . Rulers of nations won't ask for your blessing. Can't believe how naive you are....

I never said they wouldn't, i said i have no evidence at this point that they would, with TIM its a different scenario, he's willing to sacrifice and has been shown to be willing to sacrifice anyone or anything to acheive his goals, when it comes down to be the same with the council or alliance, then i can answer for them also.

In terms of the trial itself, we're yet to see either the outcome or the circumstances of how Shepard ends up on trial and if i remember correctly, when hackett explains that this is going to happen, your options include saying get stuffed.

While no doubt governments would or could sacrifice people for the greater good or to save their own asses politically, they are in fact governments and whether you like it or not your actions fall under their jurisdiction, TIm is leader of an organisation with no mandate but a self imposed one, so him deciding what or who to sacrifice is a completely different issue.

[Someone With Mass]

Well, Cerberus have proved that they are more useful now than before.

At least they are doing something instead of running pathetic experiments that just fails all the time.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]alperez wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"Capture the base" is NOT a workable plan. Yes, you need to have dmans speciific. There's no point in telling anyone (Shep) to capture or blow up the base when you have no damn idea if there even is a base there or how to do it in the first place.

"Stoping the Collectors" is also not proper plan. While TIM told you to do that, even details of THAT "plan" were added and developed as new information would come in.

So what the hell is your point here?

You keep claiming TIM's actions were suspicious because he didn't tell you his plan to capture the base, when I keep showing you that there was no usable plan, and there coudlnt' have been one.

THERE IS NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT TIM NOT TELLING YOU HOW TO CAPTURE THE BASE.
[/quote]

My point is the same as its been from the beginning, neither plan is technically a workable plan because the details required were added in later, but if its the case that stopping the collectors is a plan despite this fact then it is also the case that capturing the base could be a plan for the very same reasons.

If one could exist despite the lack of specific details then so could the other, something you originally claimed could not be true because the specifics of the capture of the base were unavailable.

I've never claimed TIM's actions were suspicious, all i've claimed is that considering he witholds info, it can be argued that he is witholding this plan also, not that he is, but that he could be.[/quote]

And I'm telling you that that's impossible because he cannot have a plan.

"Stop the reapers" isn't really a plan. "Capture the IFF, go trough the relay, scout out" - that THAT is a plan. And TIM didn't come up with that in an instant either.

In the same vein "Capture the base" is not a plan. It's a statment of intent, with no actual direction on how to achieve that goal.
Did TIM want to capture the theorethical base? Probably. That's a reasonable thing to want, even Shep should have come to that conclusion.

There's no point for TIM to withold the possibiltiy of capturing the base, there's no reason to Shep to ignore that posiblility. If an enemy asset exists, the idea of capturing it is nothing new. Shep as a soldier should have had that idea in mind from day 1.
Yet having an actual plan to do it is another thing.



[quote]
Wow, well thought out and phrased response, so knowing something that conflicts with your understanding of what the situation may be doesn't prove that your understanding of the situation was incorrect and you respond no. or are you disputing that the cerberus we face in me3 is better equipped and has more forces than me2 would have led us to believe.[/quote]

No, it doesn't prove it. Because we already know Cerberus is well equipped. We alreadyknow they have agents and a small army.
And as I said again, the 40% number is irrelevant.




[quote][quote]
They are related because they are both Bio games and they both show game deisgn practices and the discrepency between gameplay and fluff that are the result of combat design. This is actually very common in many games, where in order to make the combat longer and more challenging, more enemeis are thrown agaisnt the player that there really should be.

And you are trying to dodge really answering the queston by sainyg "DA is fantasy, nothing has to be explained".
No. It has to.
Either explain the discrepency and the disparity between gameplay/combat design and fluff or GTFO.

[/quote]
 They are 2 seperate games set in 2 seperate universes explained and governed by the rules and setups those universes have shown to be, so they are related only by the fact they are both bioware games and the rules of one have nothing to do with the other.

Mass effect is more reality based even in its setting than DA and because of that how they explain things in ME is always slightly more reality based, so an increased number of cerberus troops or cerberus suddenly having amazingly technologically advanced weaponry will have more basis in fact and explanation than anything that happens in DA.

Even though its by design that there will be more actual cerberus forces in me3, the explantion for why this is the case will more than likely be more reality based than anything DA offers, simply because thats the approach they've taken thus far with the 2 completely different universes.[/quote]

Irrelevant that they are speparate games. The same deisgin practices apply to both. Stop avoiding the issue.
And no, your explanation is bogus. ME beign Sci-Fi in no way means that explanation will be better or have to be better than DA explanations.

I asked you a question that you constnatly avoid to asnwer - Do entire armies of thugs fall from the skies in the DA universe? Are mages common? Yes or no.

If you answer no than you do confirm that gameplay/combat design and universe cannon/fluff can often conflict, and as such, combat numbers cannot be used as solid facts of the setting itself.




[quote][quote]
Only up to a point. Cerberus is stil lvery limited, even with advanced tech.
[/quote]

How much they're limited though is the question, your convinced the limitation is severe, i'm not so sure that will be the case and until we see the conditions as they're presented, you can think one way or another and not be right or wrong.[/quote]

Of course they are limited. We're talking about on arganization with an income of a few billion and a personell numbers in the hunderds, that tried to operate in the dark.
And they (theorethicly) face multiple nations with income in the hunderds of trillions, with bilions of personell and entier battle fleets....each.




[quote][quote]
Well, then, I say it's possible that Sheppard is actually dead and everything in the game is not really cannon because tha'ts really a product of his dying mind.

Gah. It's sad that you have to resort to this cheap tactic or "but X could be wrong", without actually having anything in the game that suggests it might be.

[/quote]

Wow, just wow, way to make yourself look like a complete jerk.

I say we're given information in game from a variety of sources that doesn't always tell the full story, i show an example of this in the specific case of cerberus (which is supposedly what we're discussing) and rather than contradict that claim, you jump on a ridicolous flight of fancy and try to suggest that's what i was doing.

I don't have to shown an example of where its done other than the one i already did considering that this is a specific point we're arguing about.[/quote]

What example? EDI didn't lie. TIM didn't lie either.
You got nothing from in-game that suggests otherwise.




[quote][quote]

It's not contradicting itself. Quite trying to butcher the meaning of words to support your crumbling arguments.

No, I wans't at all surprised by the size of Cerberus in ME2. We aready know from ME1 that they are a rouge Black Ops group, and that they probably still have many ties with the Alliance.
[/quote]

If your shown something a certain way and then later on your shown its not actually that way its a contradiction,. The fact that this contradiction is then explained in a manner that makes it plausible doesn't take away the fact that it was a contradiction to begin with.

You weren't surprised that the group we saw in me1 would be shown in the scale and size they were in me2 based on the info we're shown in me1, then your a visionary of nostradamus's proportions.

As for my crumbling arguments, well no doubt soon you'll claim you've torn them down and destroyed them which is your SOP when disagreeing with someone.[/quote]

As I said - no contradiction. But you desperately want it to be.

Showing an organization fro mthe outiside and inside is not a contradiction. The capabiliteis of Cerberus in ME1 and ME2 are not a contradiction. It was clear in ME1 that Cerberus had good funding (multiplek bases, multiple experiments, ties with Alliance). Unless you're talking about how their new bases look much more fancy (which is thefault of re-using teh assets for side-missions, but that is beside the point).

No, I wasn't surprised. No, I'm not a visionary. You just leek to keep your eyes closed.








[quote][quote]
Lol...politicians won't sacrifice you to save their asses or their country? Wake up.
The Alliance basicly is willing to sacrifice Sheppard (the trail). The Council would sacrifice you if it was in their interest.
Guarantee?
Everyone does what they think is necessary.
The Council would sacrifice Shep (irrispectively weather you agree with them or not) if they though it was worth it. . Rulers of nations won't ask for your blessing. Can't believe how naive you are....

[/quote]

I never said they wouldn't, i said i have no evidence at this point that they would, with TIM its a different scenario, he's willing to sacrifice and has been shown to be willing to sacrifice anyone or anything to acheive his goals, when it comes down to be the same with the council or alliance, then i can answer for them also.[/quote]

You know they would. The only difference between them and TIM is that TIM is honest about it and said it to your face.



[quote]
While no doubt governments would or could sacrifice people for the greater good or to save their own asses politically, they are in fact governments and whether you like it or not your actions fall under their jurisdiction, TIm is leader of an organisation with no mandate but a self imposed one, so him deciding what or who to sacrifice is a completely different issue.
[/quote]

No, it's not. 
Sacrificing someone else is sacrificing someone else. If the Council decised to sacrifice humantiy to save their own ass, the fact that they are a government means absolutely nothing. Juridistiction exists only if people agree to be under it.
You think poeple that are sacrificed agree? You think that give a damn if it's Cerberus or the Asari government that sacrifices them?

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


"The situation is so dire that I cannot afford to take risks". .Or what that SWM?
I think it was you - your arguments are usually of much better quality than his.

Nope wasn't me, what i said was that in the particular base keeping or destroying argument of this discussion, i feel giving the base to cerberus is a risk i'm not prepared to take.

And you are focusing on the "kill or not kill" difference, while ignoring the risk/reward difference.
The negative consequences of sparing hte Rachnii are wrose then giving Cerberus the CB. The benefits are also smaller in comparison.

Shep killed 300.000 batarians for the safety of the galaxy. And now suddenly, killing a hunderd Rachnii is a great moral dillema in comparison? If you put your own piece of mind ahead of the survival of the galaxy, then yes. I can say that you really can't distance yourself emotinally AT ALL.

Your relating every choice down to the same principle which it isn't, each choice has a specific set of circumstances behind it which can lead to different choices being made.

For the base, i get a choice which is give the base to cerberus or don't, even if i don't and cerberus turn out to be allies, the only thing i'm guilty of is weakening those allies, not killing them, not wiping them from existence because they could potentially be a threat later.

With the queen i'm given a choice which means to eliminate the potential negative i must kill the queen, not weaken her, not put a restriction on her that may make myself weaker later, but eliminate her completely from the equation, again if you can't see the difference in this choice and in the choice between handing a base to cerberus, your missing something.

As for the arrival choice, what choice do i actually have, either allow the reapers arrival or stop them even at the cost of 300'000 batarians, again if you can't see why these 3 choices are different and why different reasoning can be used, your too tied down in wanting to prove your point.

If the choice are presented in the same way andeach outcome means exactly the same thing then you can actually make the point your trying to make, the problem is though that not each choice is equal and not all have the same criteria behind why you may make one and not another, they are different precisely because of how they're laid out in front of you, so you base your choice on the sceanarios your presented with.

Cerberus helps me for what seems to be a genuine reason to fight the collectors and stop the reapers, everything the tell me seems to indicate that they are on my side and i should trust them, until that one moment when TIM proves he holds information back to suit himself.



So I was right...witholding a single peice of info ONCE and you doom them forever.

This is utterly redicolous. Reasons behind what Cerberus is doing are explined to you by more than just TIM - everyone working for Cerberus will tell you the same, and their manifesto futher supports this. Or do you now, by default, not trust anyone from Cerberus?

Cerberus motivations are explained by TIM and expanded upon by people working for him, so when its shown to me in game that TIM keeps info to himself or holds info back because it suits him to, i question what he tells me and what the people who work for him tell me also. for the simple reason that they could be towing the party line (or may not have the full story themselves).

I have other reasons apart from that particular one why i may distrust Cerberus, but i used that one as an example, when you go back and analyse what TIM tells you from the beginning of the game, using the fact you know he keeps things to himself or tells half truths then some things you've heard from him earlier which you may have questioned at the time, make a different kind of sense.

I'll give examples in another post if you wish.

What? No friend of yours or family member never lied to you or witheld info even once?
Do you trust anyone then in your life?

 Yes thats exactly the same thing, trusting whether or not i should hand over a potential weapon to an untrustworthy person in a game equates to whether or not friends or family lied to me or whether or not i trust anyone in my own life.

And you have nothing to support that idea. That's the friggin problem. One single sentace and you're ready to doom the man. Judge Dredd is more lenient than you.

And you're supposed to worry abotu the survival of the Galaxy. Period. If no one survives you're doing a even worse job. Not to mantion that any future threat is something you can deal with in the future. And not to mention that Cerberus isn't a big threat anyway.

 So by not trusting TIM i'm now dooming him in someway, you know something there's a local politician i know who i've never really trusted, i must have doomed him as well since apparently my trust is all powerful.

Seriously though its not just one single sentence, its a combination of many different things that have led me to question cerberus and what they may or may not have as their ultimate goal, i could be misinterpreting things or be overly suspicious based on my own feelings about them, but either way its the sum of many things rather than the single part of a senteance that leads me to my conclussions.

I am worrying about the survival of the galaxy, i'm also worrying about what may happen after the reapers, you say i can just handle any future threat later but aren't you kinda missing a point, what if for me there is no later, what if i stop the reapers but don't survive, then i die without the opportunity to put things right, so rather than take the chance, i worry now while i have the power to do something about it.

Not MAY, WILL.
It's is impossible to study something and NOT gain knowledge. This is techolog,y not some divine monolith that is forever beyond our comprehension!
You may loose some scientists if they get indoctrinatned, but their findings and reports live on.

And you're worried you'll unleash something agaisnt the galaxy? Newsflash - the galaxy is already f****. Nothing you can unleash from that base could ever hope to even remotely match the reapers. It reamin, after all, just one base.
And you need something agaisnt the repaers.

I have asked numerous times for you people to explain how do you plan to defeat the reapers. Not one of you had any plan, or any idea. And then you come in claiming that the base is a risk not worth taking....

The only certainty in life is that nothing is certain.

You continually cling on to the notion that the base will definetly yield something when that's only a hopeful scenario, you can indeed study something without it yielding anything important or even beneficial, is it probable that this would be the case, maybe not but its still possible, then there is the simple fact that there are also dangers in studying the base itself.

You claim its just tech and not some divine monolith that's beyond our comphrehension, but the dangers posed by this are not just a tech problem, there are indoctrination worrys which thus far has been shown to work by studying the very tech you suggest we study, as of yet we haven't been able to come up with a plan that shows this won't be the case in studying the base, your plan by studying it we learn, but that's not really worked out well so far.

The findings and reports of the indoctrinated scientists aboard the derlict reapers, helped us how exactly?

You say that nothing i can unleash from the base could potentially be incredibly harmful and yet in the same breath you claim that i can gain something that will help me against the reapers, if this is true then it stands to reason that i can unleash something that will hinder me against them also, its swings and roundabouts, if there is one there could be the other also.

In terms of not having a plan to stop the reapers, no one does, your entire plan seems to revolve around the base, which is putting a whole of faith in something you can't know will have any effect whatsoever.

The simple truth is that at this point, there is no plan to stop the reapers, but keeping the base because it may yield something that could help while playing down the possible repurcussions of not just keeping it but handing it to cerberus, makes it a risk, one i can't take.

What exactly is you plan btw? if the base yields less than you hope for, how exactly will you stop the reapers?

Yes, you do have the resources. Any forces that does not spare some reasorces to secure a potentialy vital advantage does not even deserve to survive. Remote-detonator anyone? A cruiser or two stationed near?
If you can't spare two cruisers for THAT, you're already dead.

And chances of  discovery in time? Impossible to tell. Different things would require different amount of times. a weapon upgrade or re-calibration or something simpler could be produced rahter fast. Soem vital information on the reapers weakpoints even faster. Completly new weapons or defensive systems? Those would take the longest.
But let's recall - Shep doesn't know when the Reapers will arrive. Could be months. Could be years. Could be decades.

And Cerberus behaving like Cerberus..What's that supposed to mean? You are agaisnt starting from the (wrong) assumption that trying to kill everyone is what Cerberus is about.

I'm sorry in a fight to the death where we're overmatched and getting our asses handed to us, you think we have spare resources.

We can just put a remote detonator on the base, did i miss that point in the game where i was given that option.

Your assertion we can just leave 2 cruisers to be stationed near the base kinda misses out on 2 key points, its been shown so far when we ask for help from the alliance or council, shepards claims get dismissed rather quickly and the reapers may simply take out those 2 cruisers that just happen to be stationed beside the relay or base just for funzies.

Certain discoveries could be found quick i concur, but indoctrination on an actual working base may be quick also, we just don't know what the negatives or positives may be.

Cerberus can be trusted to do what TIM decides is the right thing to do, whether or not i agree with them or disagree with them, they are a law upon themselves and my actions may not affect what they do irrespective of whether or not i agree with them.

[Someone With Mass]

"The situation is so dire that I cannot afford to take risks"

I have never said that. You can stop twisting words now.

I'm only against taking risks when it's pointless to do so, or when the benefits for myself are so small, they would barely matter anyway.

As the case with the Collector base.

I find it pointless to give it to Cerberus, because I can't trust them, nor do I know their full agenda, and as I've pointed out countless times, I'm only willing to give them such technology when they've shown that they can handle it and treat it with the carefulness and security precautions it should have.

Thus far, they haven't.

[alperez]

Lotion Soronnar wrote..


In the same vein "Capture the base" is not a plan. It's a statment of intent, with no actual direction on how to achieve that goal.
Did TIM want to capture the theorethical base? Probably. That's a reasonable thing to want, even Shep should have come to that conclusion.

We're back to semantics, calling it a plan or statement of intent is basically the same thing we've been doing all along, i've said general plan from my first post and shortened this to plan because i assumed you understood what i meant' apparently i didn't make myself clear.

Your original argument was that a plan cannot exist because the specifics of that plan aren't known, i suggested a general plan could have existed because the specifics don't need to be knows, you disagreed and kept coming back to the specifics don't exist so there couldn't have been a general plan to begin with.

Now your saying that TIM probably wanted to capture the theoretical base which is basically what i've been arguing from the beginning, so either your confusing my arguments with someone elses which explains why it looks slightly schizophrenic at times or your still arguing a point that i never argued in the first place.

No, it doesn't prove it. Because we already know Cerberus is well equipped. We alreadyknow they have agents and a small army.
And as I said again, the 40% number is irrelevant.

We know there well equipped and they have agents and some troops, what apparently is shown in me3 makes it look like they have more troops and are even better equipped then they were in me2, something which does actually prove that our impression of their strength and resources may in fact be not entirely true.

You say the 40% number proves nothing and is irrelevant but since its the estimation of what we're about to face i disagree and say it proves that the numbers we have in me2 were in fact not entirely correct.

Irrelevant that they are speparate games. The same deisgin practices apply to both. Stop avoiding the issue.
And no, your explanation is bogus. ME beign Sci-Fi in no way means that explanation will be better or have to be better than DA explanations.

I asked you a question that you constnatly avoid to asnwer - Do entire armies of thugs fall from the skies in the DA universe? Are mages common? Yes or no.

If you answer no than you do confirm that gameplay/combat design and universe cannon/fluff can often conflict, and as such, combat numbers cannot be used as solid facts of the setting itself.

Irrelevant because they are seperate universes and operate under different rules, ME has always been more reality based than anything that happens in DA, what happens in DA has no bearing whatsoever on what happens in ME.

Enemies spawning how they do in DA have no bearing on how enemies are presented in ME, there are serious differences in the gameplay and settings that allow things to happen in one that don't happen in the other.

The same design practices don't apply because its not the same team which makes both games, its not the same universe either so what makes sense in one doesn't equate to what makes sense in the other.

Of course they are limited. We're talking about on arganization with an income of a few billion and a personell numbers in the hunderds, that tried to operate in the dark.
And they (theorethicly) face multiple nations with income in the hunderds of trillions, with bilions of personell and entier battle fleets....each.

Apart from the income and personell figure which could turn out to be incorrect later (in me3).

Your argument is that they face multiple nations with vast resources, which we've already discussed in a straight fight with those nations at their strongest would mean cerberus are screwed even with larger numbers and vastly advanced tech.

But where the problem lies, is that it wouldn't be a straight fight with the other nations at their strongest, it would be if it happens when those nations are recovering from potential devastation at the hands of the reapers or when those nations are so busy fighting the reapers that they're attacked strategically at their weakest points by another force.

What example? EDI didn't lie. TIM didn't lie either.
You got nothing from in-game that suggests otherwise.

The example i gave was that TIM witholds information, so any information we receive from him has to be taken with this in mind.

In terms of EDI, i never said she was lying just that what she tells you could turn out to be incorrect, she accesses files held by cerberus which shows what is apparently the structure of cerberus and the resources they have access to. Considering that she is put on board a ship with a way to access this information, a ship where a non cerberus person is in charge and could get her to access this information, it makes sense that her access is not in fact as total as its made out to be.

Would it not be likely that only TIM himself actually has access to the entire innerworking of Cerberus rather than he created an AI gave that AI access to that information, then handed that AI over to someone who may not agree with Cerberus's goals and put into place limited blocks that could be overriden giving access to sensitive info to a non cerberus agent.

As I said - no contradiction. But you desperately want it to be.

Showing an organization fro mthe outiside and inside is not a contradiction. The capabiliteis of Cerberus in ME1 and ME2 are not a contradiction. It was clear in ME1 that Cerberus had good funding (multiplek bases, multiple experiments, ties with Alliance). Unless you're talking about how their new bases look much more fancy (which is thefault of re-using teh assets for side-missions, but that is beside the point).

No, I wasn't surprised. No, I'm not a visionary. You just leek to keep your eyes closed.

If i'm shown something in one way, then shown it later on in another its contradicting itself, if the explanation behind why its now the other way is explained correctly it isnt. So perhaps your misunderstanding what i mean by contradiction, if you look at cerberus in me1 and then look at them in me2 they are a contradiction simply by the size and scope of the operations and resources they have available, something that in me1 you couldn't possibly have expected.

In me1 they are little more than a glorified merc group with some reach galactically, in me2 they are a much larger organisation with the resources and personell to rebuild the normandy, resurrect shepard and take on a major mission of galactic importances, if that didn't surprise you then you are indeed a visionary because it surprised the hell out of most people.

You know they would. The only difference between them and TIM is that TIM is honest about it and said it to your face.

 Isn't thatthe point i've made, with TIM you can prove this to be true, with everyone else you can only suspect that it would be.

No, it's not. 
Sacrificing someone else is sacrificing someone else. If the Council decised to sacrifice humantiy to save their own ass, the fact that they are a government means absolutely nothing. Juridistiction exists only if people agree to be under it.
You think poeple that are sacrificed agree? You think that give a damn if it's Cerberus or the Asari government that sacrifices them?

There is a difference in the mere fact that the council or alliance are the representatives of the people, they're put there to make those choices and to uphold the law and jurisdiction of the people under them.

Cerberus are not, they are a law upon themselves following a mandate they themselves created, they don't represent anyone other then themselves and have no right to make choices for anyone else.

Of course the people sacrificed wouldn't agree whoever it was doing the sacrificing, but the point is that unlike cerberus, the alliance and council actually have a mandate from those people to be in a position to make those choices.

Modifié par alperez, 12 août 2011 - 02:18 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]
[quote]

And you are focusing on the "kill or not kill" difference, while ignoring the risk/reward difference.
The negative consequences of sparing hte Rachnii are wrose then giving Cerberus the CB. The benefits are also smaller in comparison.

Shep killed 300.000 batarians for the safety of the galaxy. And now suddenly, killing a hunderd Rachnii is a great moral dillema in comparison? If you put your own piece of mind ahead of the survival of the galaxy, then yes. I can say that you really can't distance yourself emotinally AT ALL.
[/quote]

Your relating every choice down to the same principle which it isn't, each choice has a specific set of circumstances behind it which can lead to different choices being made.

For the base, i get a choice which is give the base to cerberus or don't, even if i don't and cerberus turn out to be allies, the only thing i'm guilty of is weakening those allies, not killing them, not wiping them from existence because they could potentially be a threat later.

With the queen i'm given a choice which means to eliminate the potential negative i must kill the queen, not weaken her, not put a restriction on her that may make myself weaker later, but eliminate her completely from the equation, again if you can't see the difference in this choice and in the choice between handing a base to cerberus, your missing something.

As for the arrival choice, what choice do i actually have, either allow the reapers arrival or stop them even at the cost of 300'000 batarians, again if you can't see why these 3 choices are different and why different reasoning can be used, your too tied down in wanting to prove your point.

If the choice are presented in the same way and each outcome means exactly the same thing then you can actually make the point your trying to make, the problem is though that not each choice is equal and not all have the same criteria behind why you may make one and not another, they are different precisely because of how they're laid out in front of you, so you base your choice on the sceanarios your presented with.[/quote]

I'm relating down to the choice to the only principle that really matters.
The main criteria (survival of the galaxy) should AWAYS be the first and foremost thing in any critical decisions. Any other criteria and conditions are secondary.

Killing or weakening TIM or the queen - makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. Life in this cycle survived thousands of species becoming exinct. It survived the Reachni being extinct (and you can even argue what gives Shep the right to bring them back) It wont' survie the reapers.






[quote][quote]
Cerberus helps me for what seems to be a genuine reason to fight the collectors and stop the reapers, everything the tell me seems to indicate that they are on my side and i should trust them, until that one moment when TIM proves he holds information back to suit himself.



So I was right...witholding a single peice of info ONCE and you doom them forever.

This is utterly redicolous. Reasons behind what Cerberus is doing are explined to you by more than just TIM - everyone working for Cerberus will tell you the same, and their manifesto futher supports this. Or do you now, by default, not trust anyone from Cerberus?

[/quote]

Cerberus motivations are explained by TIM and expanded upon by people working for him, so when its shown to me in game that TIM keeps info to himself or holds info back because it suits him to, i question what he tells me and what the people who work for him tell me also. for the simple reason that they could be towing the party line (or may not have the full story themselves).[/quote]

Aha..so everyone you don't like is lying. Everyone you like is perfect.
You just handwave a dozen different sources all saying the same thing, on the account that they can ALL be wrong.

And then when you have just one soruce, you never question that one source.....<_<





[quote][quote]
What? No friend of yours or family member never lied to you or witheld info even once?
Do you trust anyone then in your life?

[/quote]
 Yes thats exactly the same thing, trusting whether or not i should hand over a potential weapon to an untrustworthy person in a game equates to whether or not friends or family lied to me or whether or not i trust anyone in my own life.[/quote]

The point is that you so easily decided him to be untrustworthy. People lie all the time. Yet you dont' scrutinize everyone, now do you?






[quote]
I am worrying about the survival of the galaxy, i'm also worrying about what may happen after the reapers, you say i can just handle any future threat later but aren't you kinda missing a point, what if for me there is no later, what if i stop the reapers but don't survive, then i die without the opportunity to put things right, so rather than take the chance, i worry now while i have the power to do something about it.[/quote]

So you got no faith in others? You think everyone else in the galaxy incapable of handling TIM?
You actually think TIM can take over the galaxy of united races?

You actually think the day after tomorrow matters when there is no tomorrow?




[quote][quote]
Not MAY, WILL.
It's is impossible to study something and NOT gain knowledge. This is techolog,y not some divine monolith that is forever beyond our comprehension!
You may loose some scientists if they get indoctrinatned, but their findings and reports live on.

And you're worried you'll unleash something agaisnt the galaxy? Newsflash - the galaxy is already f****. Nothing you can unleash from that base could ever hope to even remotely match the reapers. It reamin, after all, just one base.
And you need something agaisnt the repaers.

I have asked numerous times for you people to explain how do you plan to defeat the reapers. Not one of you had any plan, or any idea. And then you come in claiming that the base is a risk not worth taking....

[/quote]

The only certainty in life is that nothing is certain.

You continually cling on to the notion that the base will definetly yield something when that's only a hopeful scenario, you can indeed study something without it yielding anything important or even beneficial, is it probable that this would be the case, maybe not but its still possible, then there is the simple fact that there are also dangers in studying the base itself.[/quote]

No. It will yield something because it's advanced technology you study. You somehow harp on the idea teh the sum of human knowledge won't increase with study something specific. This isn't some whacky side-experiment that spends 10 years trying ot verify a theory, only to be proven wrong.
This includes studying working, proven tehcnology. You know it wokrs. You know it's advanced. It WILL yield results.

And danger? There's a galacitc war off extinction coming. F**** danger.



[quote]
You claim its just tech and not some divine monolith that's beyond our comphrehension, but the dangers posed by this are not just a tech problem, there are indoctrination worrys which thus far has been shown to work by studying the very tech you suggest we study, as of yet we haven't been able to come up with a plan that shows this won't be the case in studying the base, your plan by studying it we learn, but that's not really worked out well so far.

The findings and reports of the indoctrinated scientists aboard the derlict reapers, helped us how exactly?[/quote]

We have plenty of examples of reaper tech study gone right. If you want to give up and hoist he white flag out of fear, be my guest.

And the Derelict reaper scientists reports? I wouldnt' know what's in them as I haven't read them. You should ask TIM. Given that tehy studied hte repaer internals to find and indentify the IFF, I'd say there's bound to be plenty of interesting stuff.


[quote]
You say that nothing i can unleash from the base could potentially be incredibly harmful and yet in the same breath you claim that i can gain something that will help me against the reapers, if this is true then it stands to reason that i can unleash something that will hinder me against them also, its swings and roundabouts, if there is one there could be the other also.[/quote]

Nope.
Why' Becuase if something positive comes out of the base, it's to be employed by Alliance and the other races combined. Le'ts say somthing like better ship shield or cannons. Hence the positive effects spread  across the resistance.
The same tech used only by Cerberus would have little impact.

Then you can take something like knowledge of reaper vulnerabilties or weak points. That knowledge is really only usefull agaisnt reapers. Or a reaper off switch. Knowledge of their man HQ.



[quote]
In terms of not having a plan to stop the reapers, no one does, your entire plan seems to revolve around the base, which is putting a whole of faith in something you can't know will have any effect whatsoever.[/quote]

Which is better than your plan of praying.
The base offers a chance. It might not give us what we need in time. But it's teh best chance we got.

What other option you have out there?


[quote]
The simple truth is that at this point, there is no plan to stop the reapers, but keeping the base because it may yield something that could help while playing down the possible repurcussions of not just keeping it but handing it to cerberus, makes it a risk, one i can't take.[/quote]

And the simple truth is that the galaxy stands no chance as it is.
If you're not willing to take risks to get the galaxy ready, then step aside and let other people do it.
A Paragon Shep is a bigger danger to the galaxy than Cerberus, because at least Cerberus does everythnig it can to stop the reapers.

[quote]
What exactly is you plan btw? if the base yields less than you hope for, how exactly will you stop the reapers?[/quote]

The same way you plan to.
If the base fails, at least I tried to give the galaxy a fighting chance.





[quote][quote]
Yes, you do have the resources. Any forces that does not spare some reasorces to secure a potentialy vital advantage does not even deserve to survive. Remote-detonator anyone? A cruiser or two stationed near?
If you can't spare two cruisers for THAT, you're already dead.

And chances of  discovery in time? Impossible to tell. Different things would require different amount of times. a weapon upgrade or re-calibration or something simpler could be produced rahter fast. Soem vital information on the reapers weakpoints even faster. Completly new weapons or defensive systems? Those would take the longest.
But let's recall - Shep doesn't know when the Reapers will arrive. Could be months. Could be years. Could be decades.

And Cerberus behaving like Cerberus..What's that supposed to mean? You are agaisnt starting from the (wrong) assumption that trying to kill everyone is what Cerberus is about.
[/quote]

I'm sorry in a fight to the death where we're overmatched and getting our asses handed to us, you think we have spare resources.[/quote]

For a vital asset? Defiantely. That's what's sacrifice and priority is about. Assing your resources wisely.


[quote]
We can just put a remote detonator on the base, did i miss that point in the game where i was given that option.[/quote]

No, but it is a logical possiblity. Your Shep could return at any time later and blow the base up.


[quote]
Your assertion we can just leave 2 cruisers to be stationed near the base kinda misses out on 2 key points, its been shown so far when we ask for help from the alliance or council, shepards claims get dismissed rather quickly and the reapers may simply take out those 2 cruisers that just happen to be stationed beside the relay or base just for funzies.[/quote]

The reapers don't enter the galaxy anywhere near. The cruisers would have all the time in the world to blow the base up and leave long before the reapers come.
And Hackett trusts you.


[quote]
Certain discoveries could be found quick i concur, but indoctrination on an actual working base may be quick also, we just don't know what the negatives or positives may be.[/quote]

Indoctrination usually takes weeks IIRC. And the scientist would do their job untill then.
And how do you plan to fight indoctrination wihout studying it.

Do you look forward ot the prospect of shootign your former friends in the future? No? Then take the fukken risk now and maybe you won't have to.


[quote]
Cerberus can be trusted to do what TIM decides is the right thing to do, whether or not i agree with them or disagree with them, they are a law upon themselves and my actions may not affect what they do irrespective of whether or not i agree with them.
[/quote]

Same holds true for the council and Alliance. Tehy never ask you to approve or agree with anything they do.

[alperez]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


I'm relating down to the choice to the only principle that really matters.
The main criteria (survival of the galaxy) should AWAYS be the first and foremost thing in any critical decisions. Any other criteria and conditions are secondary.

Killing or weakening TIM or the queen - makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. Life in this cycle survived thousands of species becoming exinct. It survived the Reachni being extinct (and you can even argue what gives Shep the right to bring them back) It wont' survie the reapers.
[/quote]

Which is in fact a basic approach, rather than choose based on the merits or not of each particular choice, your using a singular reason to justify why you make the choice.



[quote]

Aha..so everyone you don't like is lying. Everyone you like is perfect.
You just handwave a dozen different sources all saying the same thing, on the account that they can ALL be wrong.

And then when you have just one soruce, you never question that one source.....<_<

[/quote]

No but how you feel about someone will influence the benefit of the doubt your willing to give that person, its human nature, no matter how much you argue against it, emotions will form the basis a lot of times when you make a judgement call, be it about a person or a decision.

People working for an organisation may not be the most unbiased advocates so what they say has to be taken with this in mind, not to mention that they may not have the full story considering their own position in that organisation.

Since the source is the man himself and he would be the one who knows, why should i question someone else to find a different viewpoint, Tim witholds info he tells me this which i know to be true, so why would i question the source of that knowledge?



[quote]

The point is that you so easily decided him to be untrustworthy. People lie all the time. Yet you dont' scrutinize everyone, now do you?

[/quote]

In terms of what this discussion is supposed to be about, why would i? If i'm supposed to hand over a base to Cerberus what relevance is there in me knowing that someone other then cerberus is untrustworthy?

I deem him untrustworthy because of his interactions with me, not because i suddenly went "Don't like the sound of that martin sheen guy, he sounds untrustworthy".


[quote]

So you got no faith in others? You think everyone else in the galaxy incapable of handling TIM?
You actually think TIM can take over the galaxy of united races?

You actually think the day after tomorrow matters when there is no tomorrow?
[/quote]

Your missing the point, at the time i make the choice the only person i can rely on is myself, i don't have the option to do anything else other than hand the base over or destroy it, so its in my hands to handle TIm as you put it.

Of course it does, what point is there in solving tomorrow's problem by creating a problem for the day after, but even so your question is based on the assumption that my choice precludes tommorrow from happening, something you can't be certain is the case and only assume.


[quote]

No. It will yield something because it's advanced technology you study. You somehow harp on the idea teh the sum of human knowledge won't increase with study something specific. This isn't some whacky side-experiment that spends 10 years trying ot verify a theory, only to be proven wrong.
This includes studying working, proven tehcnology. You know it wokrs. You know it's advanced. It WILL yield results.

And danger? There's a galacitc war off extinction coming. F**** danger.

[/quote]

Its not just advanced tech, its advanced reaper tech, its already been shown to have serious repurcussions in the wrong hands which i believe cerberus to be. If it was just basic tech with no inherent danger other than the simple dangers involved in studying tech then there isn't a real problem, but thats not been shown to either be the case with reaper tech or with cerberus studying it, something your dismissing from your argument.

The danger of the galactic war would be enhanced if the tech on board the base is misused due to incompetance or for any other reason apart from stopping the reapers, something you cannot be certain is going to be the case with the base.

[quote]


We have plenty of examples of reaper tech study gone right. If you want to give up and hoist he white flag out of fear, be my guest.

And the Derelict reaper scientists reports? I wouldnt' know what's in them as I haven't read them. You should ask TIM. Given that tehy studied hte repaer internals to find and indentify the IFF, I'd say there's bound to be plenty of interesting stuff.
[/quote]

We also have plenty of examples of cerberus mishandling their study of reaper tech, again its swings and roundabouts, do i feel its a risk worth taking letting cerberus study that tech, no i don't, that's not hoisting a white flag, thats simply taking stock of a specific situation and coming to a judgement on it.

In game the only advantage we've been shown from the derelict reaper is finding the IFF drive, which considering that's why we went to the reaper in the first place isn't actually a huge bonus.
[quote]

Nope.
Why' Becuase if something positive comes out of the base, it's to be employed by Alliance and the other races combined. Le'ts say somthing like better ship shield or cannons. Hence the positive effects spread  across the resistance.
The same tech used only by Cerberus would have little impact.

Then you can take something like knowledge of reaper vulnerabilties or weak points. That knowledge is really only usefull agaisnt reapers. Or a reaper off switch. Knowledge of their man HQ.
[/quote]

So now you know not only what cerberus will do with whatever they find on the base (give it to the alliance and other races) but what form exactly those positives will take, your either an extreme optimist or a visionary.

The simple truth is good or bad you have no idea what may come out of the base, you have no idea if the positives will outweigh the negatives and you have no idea if Cerberus will do what you hope they will with whatever they find, which means in the end your making a blind choice based on hope, your perfectly entitled to do so, as am i not to.

[quote]

Which is better than your plan of praying.
The base offers a chance. It might not give us what we need in time. But it's teh best chance we got.

What other option you have out there?
[/quote]

Yet putting my entire faith into the possible advantages of a base i can't be certain will deliver those advantages and into an organisation i cannot know will either be able to maximise those advantages or share them isn't praying.

You assume the base is the best chance we have based on nothing more than an assumption that this may be the case.

You ask what other option i have, i've already said i don't know, what i do know however is that neither do you, yet yu cling to the hope that the base will only benefit you, wlll not cause you negative consequences and then accuse me of praying.

The simple truth is that as of yet we have no plan to beat the reapers, but the base isn't the way to do it, not just because of the possible negatives it could contain, but because cerberus rather than me will be in control of it.
[quote]

And the simple truth is that the galaxy stands no chance as it is.
If you're not willing to take risks to get the galaxy ready, then step aside and let other people do it.
A Paragon Shep is a bigger danger to the galaxy than Cerberus, because at least Cerberus does everythnig it can to stop the reapers.
[/quote]

But of course with the base and with Cerberus by your side the reapers are quaking in their boots.

I'm willing to take risks, what i'm not willing to do is take what i believe are risks that make no sense to me.

A paragon Shep is a bigger danger to the galaxy, just proves your own reneged bias is what drives your decision making and not the incredible logic and reason you've always claimed.
[quote]

The same way you plan to.
If the base fails, at least I tried to give the galaxy a fighting chance.

[/quote]
 Or you took a risk that bit you in the ass because you believed it gave the galaxy a fighting chance.


[quote]

For a vital asset? Defiantely. That's what's sacrifice and priority is about. Assing your resources wisely.

[/quote]

And if you don't have those resources or are sacrificing them for what later turns out to be inconsequential, then your where exactly.
[quote]

No, but it is a logical possiblity. Your Shep could return at any time later and blow the base up.
[/quote]

Again at the time i'm forced to make the choice, its not presented to me therefore it can have no bearing in the choice itself.

[quote]

The reapers don't enter the galaxy anywhere near. The cruisers would have all the time in the world to blow the base up and leave long before the reapers come.
And Hackett trusts you.
[/quote]

You now know exactly where they enter and how much time cruisers would have to blow the base up before the reapers got to them, again your a visionary, do the lotto quick.

Hackett may indeed trust me, but again so far in game its been shown when Shepard needs something, the alliance or Council don't exactly come across with it, besides Hackett's so well connected that he needed Shepard to rescue his friend rather than be able to call on alliance personell, maybe not the best example.
[quote]

Indoctrination usually takes weeks IIRC. And the scientist would do their job untill then.
And how do you plan to fight indoctrination wihout studying it.

Do you look forward ot the prospect of shootign your former friends in the future? No? Then take the fukken risk now and maybe you won't have to.
[/quote]

Indoctrination takes place in weeks you say, from what source is this? isn't the truth that it actually varies.

How to study it is indeed the question, maybe not putting people directly in contact with the tech to find out an answer we already know though isn't the right answer, what is i'm not sure, but doing something that doesn't work proves nothing either.

[quote]

Same holds true for the council and Alliance. Tehy never ask you to approve or agree with anything they do.

[/quote]

They are the representatives of the races they're put in power by, something that cerberus is not, they've been given a mandate by the majority of people in the universe to make choices for that majority, If i disagree with them then i have the option of not supporting them and if enough people do so then they lose the right to make those choices.

Cerberus irrespective of the majority of opinion, irregardless of whether people agree or disagree with them, do as they please with no consequences to face, so its a slightly different scenario.

Modifié par alperez, 12 août 2011 - 03:47 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]alperez wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


I'm relating down to the choice to the only principle that really matters.
The main criteria (survival of the galaxy) should AWAYS be the first and foremost thing in any critical decisions. Any other criteria and conditions are secondary.

Killing or weakening TIM or the queen - makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. Life in this cycle survived thousands of species becoming exinct. It survived the Reachni being extinct (and you can even argue what gives Shep the right to bring them back) It wont' survie the reapers.
[/quote]

Which is in fact a basic approach, rather than choose based on the merits or not of each particular choice, your using a singular reason to justify why you make the choice.[/quote]

The fate of the galaxy hangs in the blance. What helps the most IS the most importnat merit, not arbitrary morality.

Your using a vastly subjective and emotional reasoning to justify your choice. Which would really be fine if the choice isn't really important of if Shep didn't have the respponsibiltiy he has. Shep that can't make hard choices has no place in N7 or Specters.



[quote]
Aha..so everyone you don't like is lying. Everyone you like is perfect.
You just handwave a dozen different sources all saying the same thing, on the account that they can ALL be wrong.

And then when you have just one soruce, you never question that one source.....<_<
[/quote]

No but how you feel about someone will influence the benefit of the doubt your willing to give that person, its human nature, no matter how much you argue against it, emotions will form the basis a lot of times when you make a judgement call, be it about a person or a decision.[/quote]

And realising that you can work agaisnt it.

[quote]
People working for an organisation may not be the most unbiased advocates so what they say has to be taken with this in mind, not to mention that they may not have the full story considering their own position in that organisation.

Since the source is the man himself and he would be the one who knows, why should i question someone else to find a different viewpoint, Tim witholds info he tells me this which i know to be true, so why would i question the source of that knowledge?[/quote]

So you actually believe that?
That TIM lies to everyone in the organizationm, even high-reaking members like Miranda (and would she lise to you if you romanced her?). That everything Cerberus does, even if it ficts perfectly with their stated goals, is in reality some sinister gambit. How likely is all of that? OR is it more likely that you are simply wrong?
Occam's Razor.
If Cerberus was some real organization and you said something like that, people would label you as a crazy conspiracy theorist.




[quote][quote]
So you got no faith in others? You think everyone else in the galaxy incapable of handling TIM?
You actually think TIM can take over the galaxy of united races?

You actually think the day after tomorrow matters when there is no tomorrow?
[/quote]

Your missing the point, at the time i make the choice the only person i can rely on is myself, i don't have the option to do anything else other than hand the base over or destroy it, so its in my hands to handle TIm as you put it.[/quote]

What? You can't realy on your temmates? Anderson? Hackett?
Shep all alone in the galaxy????
Oh come now. Now you're just sounding incredibly self-absorbed.


[quote]
Of course it does, what point is there in solving tomorrow's problem by creating a problem for the day after, but even so your question is based on the assumption that my choice precludes tommorrow from happening, something you can't be certain is the case and only assume.[/quote]

What's the point? The point is that there IS a day after. I though that would be obvious.

As for you choice.. I can reasonably assume given the power seen by the reapers.




[quote][quote]
No. It will yield something because it's advanced technology you study. You somehow harp on the idea teh the sum of human knowledge won't increase with study something specific. This isn't some whacky side-experiment that spends 10 years trying ot verify a theory, only to be proven wrong.
This includes studying working, proven tehcnology. You know it wokrs. You know it's advanced. It WILL yield results.

And danger? There's a galacitc war off extinction coming. F**** danger.
[/quote]


Its not just advanced tech, its advanced reaper tech, its already been shown to have serious repurcussions in the wrong hands which i believe cerberus to be. If it was just basic tech with no inherent danger other than the simple dangers involved in studying tech then there isn't a real problem, but thats not been shown to either be the case with reaper tech or with cerberus studying it, something your dismissing from your argument.

The danger of the galactic war would be enhanced if the tech on board the base is misused due to incompetance or for any other reason apart from stopping the reapers, something you cannot be certain is going to be the case with the base.[/quote]


Wait, so now you stopped arguing no tech may come of it?
MEh. All tech can have reprocussions in the wrong hands. Ceberus could have nuked cities all over the galaxy if it wanted (point a ship at the plannet, accelerate and get out)

And Cerberus got RESULTS. You keep talking about reseached killed, but progress was made in each case - and there were cases where everything went smoothly. So no matter if Cerberus messes up or does clean research - no matter if they share tech or not - once that knowledge has been gained, one way or antoher, it exists. If it exists it can be taken.

Can I be certain ther will be no fallout? no. Can you be certain there won't be fallout for saving the Racnii queen or helping the geth? No.
The potential fallout becomes oh-so-uber-importnat when taking about the CB, yet that same fallout becomes irrelevant when talking about other choices????

What I can be certain is that the chances of survival in a war agasint the reapers are near null.




[quote][quote]
We have plenty of examples of reaper tech study gone right. If you want to give up and hoist he white flag out of fear, be my guest.

And the Derelict reaper scientists reports? I wouldnt' know what's in them as I haven't read them. You should ask TIM. Given that tehy studied hte repaer internals to find and indentify the IFF, I'd say there's bound to be plenty of interesting stuff.
[/quote]

We also have plenty of examples of cerberus mishandling their study of reaper tech, again its swings and roundabouts, do i feel its a risk worth taking letting cerberus study that tech, no i don't, that's not hoisting a white flag, thats simply taking stock of a specific situation and coming to a judgement on it.

In game the only advantage we've been shown from the derelict reaper is finding the IFF drive, which considering that's why we went to the reaper in the first place isn't actually a huge bonus.
[/quote]

As I said, Cerberus gets results one way or antoehr. And that's what matters. And yes, that is hoisting the white flag.
You'd throw away the best chance at countering the reapers because you fear Cerberus.

And getting the IFF may be the only advantage you actually get, be we have seen that teh scientists did make journals and reports as they were beign indoctrianted. They have managed to find the IFF, which is in itself impressive.
Adn they did fine with EDI, which saved Sheppards ass in more than one occasion.




[quote]
Nope.
Why' Becuase if something positive comes out of the base, it's to be employed by Alliance and the other races combined. Le'ts say somthing like better ship shield or cannons. Hence the positive effects spread  across the resistance.
The same tech used only by Cerberus would have little impact.

Then you can take something like knowledge of reaper vulnerabilties or weak points. That knowledge is really only usefull agaisnt reapers. Or a reaper off switch. Knowledge of their man HQ.
[/quote]

So now you know not only what cerberus will do with whatever they find on the base (give it to the alliance and other races) but what form exactly those positives will take, your either an extreme optimist or a visionary.

The simple truth is good or bad you have no idea what may come out of the base, you have no idea if the positives will outweigh the negatives and you have no idea if Cerberus will do what you hope they will with whatever they find, which means in the end your making a blind choice based on hope, your perfectly entitled to do so, as am i not to.[/quote]

Again, I can REASONABLY presume.
Reapers are super-spaceships. Base was used to build a reaper. Hence why it's likely that tech related to inner workings and construction of reapers is the result. For example, reaper engines. Any starship needs them, and it stands to reason the base is also used to build those.
So yeah, I cna safely say that there are mroe likely and less likely products of the CB.

And I'm also explaning how that info/tech CAN be used. That Cerberus will give it is hte most reasonable course of action (if not, steal it)


And it's irony you're saying I'm making a chaise based on hope, when you're the one hoping based on NOTHING, just beliveing things will work out by themselves or that some Dus Ex Machina will fall into your lap.
At least the CB is somthing solid, something that can reasonably work.
What do you have?





[quote][quote]
Which is better than your plan of praying.
The base offers a chance. It might not give us what we need in time. But it's teh best chance we got.

What other option you have out there?
[/quote]

Yet putting my entire faith into the possible advantages of a base i can't be certain will deliver those advantages and into an organisation i cannot know will either be able to maximise those advantages or share them isn't praying.

You assume the base is the best chance we have based on nothing more than an assumption that this may be the case.

You ask what other option i have, i've already said i don't know, what i do know however is that neither do you, yet yu cling to the hope that the base will only benefit you, wlll not cause you negative consequences and then accuse me of praying.

The simple truth is that as of yet we have no plan to beat the reapers, but the base isn't the way to do it, not just because of the possible negatives it could contain, but because cerberus rather than me will be in control of it.[/quote]

No, the simple truth is that I have far more reasons to hope that you ever could.

Again, my hope is based on palatible, visible things. To take every resource we can, to follow every lead (so no, my entire faith isn't placed in the CB) and find a way to stop them.
The base isn't blind home - it really is the best chance we logicly have,

What you have is prayers. You admit you don't jknow of any other options., You PRESUME they exist with nothing to back it up. Not even probabiltiy.






[quote][quote]
And the simple truth is that the galaxy stands no chance as it is.
If you're not willing to take risks to get the galaxy ready, then step aside and let other people do it.
A Paragon Shep is a bigger danger to the galaxy than Cerberus, because at least Cerberus does everythnig it can to stop the reapers.
[/quote]

But of course with the base and with Cerberus by your side the reapers are quaking in their boots.

I'm willing to take risks, what i'm not willing to do is take what i believe are risks that make no sense to me.

A paragon Shep is a bigger danger to the galaxy, just proves your own reneged bias is what drives your decision making and not the incredible logic and reason you've always claimed.[/quote]

I'm actually a mostly paragon player.
I don't even like Cerberus and TIM.. but I HATE people with redicolous reasoning that put their own self-righteousnesss ahead of everything.


I find the bolded part even more interesting ,as I seem to recall you clamied that both decisiosn were reasonable. And now the renegade one doesnt' make sense? Or was that again someone else and not you?



[quote][quote]
The same way you plan to.
If the base fails, at least I tried to give the galaxy a fighting chance.

[/quote]
 Or you took a risk that bit you in the ass because you believed it gave the galaxy a fighting chance.[/quote]

It gave it a chance. But chance is a harsh mistress.
Better than staring blankly in the wall and doign nothing.



[quote][quote]
For a vital asset? Defiantely. That's what's sacrifice and priority is about. Assing your resources wisely.
[/quote]

And if you don't have those resources or are sacrificing them for what later turns out to be inconsequential, then your where exactly.[/quote]

There is no "don't have" resources. If a side in a war can't protect vital resources, it already lost.
And you protect what you deem important. If it turns out if wasn't..bummer. But that holds true for everything one deems importnat. You act on what you know or predict now.




[quote][quote]
No, but it is a logical possiblity. Your Shep could return at any time later and blow the base up.
[/quote]

Again at the time i'm forced to make the choice, its not presented to me therefore it can have no bearing in the choice itself.[/quote]

the choice doesn't tell you ANYTHING that will happen after it. It doesn't tell you TIM will use it tu subjugate the universe, yet you seem to base the decision based on that possibility. So the possibiltiy for Shep to alter blow up the base is also a future possiblity.



[quote][quote]
The reapers don't enter the galaxy anywhere near. The cruisers would have all the time in the world to blow the base up and leave long before the reapers come.
And Hackett trusts you.
[/quote]

You now know exactly where they enter and how much time cruisers would have to blow the base up before the reapers got to them, again your a visionary, do the lotto quick.[/quote]

Nah. But there's only way realy leading to there and spaceships really can't hide that well. A couple of scout sats or drone is all you need to give you a heads up. Ship, not even reapers, move instantly.
A 5-minute warning is all you would need.

And even assumign the reapers re-capture it..SO WHAT? On the reaper side, the CB would be completley irrelevant to their war effort.



[quote][quote]
Indoctrination usually takes weeks IIRC. And the scientist would do their job untill then.
And how do you plan to fight indoctrination wihout studying it.

Do you look forward ot the prospect of shootign your former friends in the future? No? Then take the fukken risk now and maybe you won't have to.
[/quote]

Indoctrination takes place in weeks you say, from what source is this? isn't the truth that it actually varies.

How to study it is indeed the question, maybe not putting people directly in contact with the tech to find out an answer we already know though isn't the right answer, what is i'm not sure, but doing something that doesn't work proves nothing either.[/quote]

Well, maybe you shouldnt' be telling the scientists how to do their job? Indoctrination is definately a tough nut to crack, and it may require may sacrifices to finally understand it - but you really should do it. Indoctrination is the reapers most insidious weapon.



[quote][quote]
Same holds true for the council and Alliance. Tehy never ask you to approve or agree with anything they do.
[/quote]

They are the representatives of the races they're put in power by, something that cerberus is not, they've been given a mandate by the majority of people in the universe to make choices for that majority, If i disagree with them then i have the option of not supporting them and if enough people do so then they lose the right to make those choices.

Cerberus irrespective of the majority of opinion, irregardless of whether people agree or disagree with them, do as they please with no consequences to face, so its a slightly different scenario.
[/quote]

People are morons and put morons in power. They might be EMPOWERED to make choices, but hat doesn't mean that the majority would even agree with their decision. Or even know. Or even care.
Legitimacy is totally irrelevant.
We're talking about decisions that would be made in the midst of the galactic war of extinction.Do you really think the Asari leadership would shrink from abandoning the humans to the reapers, if they even for a second thought it would be in the best interest of hte Asari?