708 réponses à ce sujet

[S.A.K]

Paragon Renegade war FTW!

[TobyHasEyes]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

MacCready wrote...

Put your question in real life terms, for example, change pro-human to pro-white. Are you a paragon? No, you are a dick!

How about pro-American, or pro-Western in general? I think that's more accurate. Am I still a dick?

Yes

Not to get political but anti-americanism pisses me off.

 Good job I am not anti-America..

 I was saying that if someone thinks that pro-human doesn't equate to racism, but rather patriotism, then when pursued at the expense of those outside of your loyalty group it still doesn't seem justified

[Icinix]

Agamo45 wrote...
.... I would not be surprised if the paragon ending to ME3 involves sacrificing Earth to save the rest of the galaxy.

*fingers crossed*

As a player who never plays anything other than paragon, I sincerely do hope this is the case.

[TobyHasEyes]

Icinix wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...
.... I would not be surprised if the paragon ending to ME3 involves sacrificing Earth to save the rest of the galaxy.

*fingers crossed*

As a player who never plays anything other than paragon, I sincerely do hope this is the case.

If that does happen it would be nice for it to have Paragon and Renegade dialogue possible when pursuing that option; whatever your views on the rest of the galaxy are, sacrificing one planet to stop the Reaper threat forever is a do-able sacrifice

[marshalleck]

Zu Long wrote...
As I pointed out in an earlier post, time isn't a factor. 

You're wrong. Simply repeating it doesn't make it right. Shepard does NOT know that by the time the arms open, the situation with the geth would be decided. For all he knows it could bog the fleet down long enough to allow Sovereign to complete its work.

Modifié par marshalleck, 17 août 2011 - 11:52 .

[Icinix]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...
.... I would not be surprised if the paragon ending to ME3 involves sacrificing Earth to save the rest of the galaxy.

*fingers crossed*

As a player who never plays anything other than paragon, I sincerely do hope this is the case.

If that does happen it would be nice for it to have Paragon and Renegade dialogue possible when pursuing that option; whatever your views on the rest of the galaxy are, sacrificing one planet to stop the Reaper threat forever is a do-able sacrifice

Definitely.  Although I'd like to see the decisions of previous games push you down a path of no return, or at least very hard to end up outside of particular endings.  If you played a game that put humanity as the sole council, geth and quarians lean towards war etc etc, I'd like to see humanity end up as the dominant force in the galaxy by miles - making it less likely (or much harder) to have Earth sacrificed. Then vice versa, if you played a unified galaxy and humanity as another player, make it much harder to sacrifice another race or save the Earth.  Of course, logistically that would be hard, and potentially ****** off a lot of people who wanted to aim for a paricular outcome.

[Zu Long]

marshalleck wrote...

Zu Long wrote...
As I pointed out in an earlier post, time isn't a factor. 

You're wrong. Simply repeating it doesn't make it right. Shepard does NOT know that by the time the arms open, the situation with the geth would be decided. For all he knows it could bog the fleet down long enough to allow Sovereign to complete its work.

On the contrary, Shepard is an Alliance marine with some 11 years of experience. S/he has a pretty good idea of arcturus fleet's strength and the citadel systems would be able to give her info on the number of Geth assaulting the DA. S/he could easily estimate how the engagement will turn out and how long it will take.

And again, your companion's dialogue makes it clear that it's not a question of time but rather of lost firepower and personel in pursuit of saving a group of  people who haven't really been a whole lot of help to you and have in fact made all this harder than it needed to be. Bioware ignores the tactical considerations for the more dramatic consequences of the choice (Save the Council or Let them die), but the simple fact is that destroying the geth prior to assaulting Sovereign is the tactically correct option.

Modifié par Zu Long, 17 août 2011 - 12:15 .

[marshalleck]

Nope. Committing yourself to taking casualties when you don't know how much firepower you're going to need to take down Sovereign, or how much time you've even got for the attempt is not tactically correct.

[Barquiel]

It's a good thing you lose neither time nor firepower if you save the DA.

[marshalleck]

Barquiel wrote...

It's a good thing you lose neither time nor firepower if you save the DA.

Yep, well, that's the nature of the game, and why presenting metagame arguments is futile. Paragon risks will never ever backfire, result in less content for Paragons, etc. 

If you're willing to metagame it and you're going for best result, clearly you take every paragon decision presented because all their gambits always pay off without exception.

Modifié par marshalleck, 17 août 2011 - 12:28 .

[Icinix]

marshalleck wrote...

Nope. Committing yourself to taking casualties when you don't know how much firepower you're going to need to take down Sovereign, or how much time you've even got for the attempt is not tactically correct.

Yeah - but if you don't save the Ascension, you still just sit back and wait for the forces to die down.

The way I saw it was since you had to go through them anway, you may as well do it straight away and save the Ascension while you're mosing on in.

[Arppis]

marshalleck wrote...

Nope. Committing yourself to taking casualties when you don't know how much firepower you're going to need to take down Sovereign, or how much time you've even got for the attempt is not tactically correct.

I'm glad it's not you covering my back in a firefight.

You might stop and count your bullets while others get killed (or something). It is after all lives of your allies you are talking about here.

And paragons end up losing 8 cruisers if I recall right. So it is not without a cost. But this is good decission in a long run. And I wish Renegade characters would get tossed to jail because of their actions, but we can't have that now can we?

Modifié par Arppis, 17 août 2011 - 12:26 .

[marshalleck]

Arppis wrote...


You might stop and count your bullets while others get killed (or something). It is after all lives of your allies you are talking about here.

I'd stop and count bullets if knowing how much ammo I have is somehow a condition for achieving the objective. I don't know how that makes sense, but then, it's your example not mine. 

And holding back forces isn't done for the sake of saving lives--it's for bringing as much firepower to bear on Sovereign at one time as is possible to achieve. When the Fleet's morale starts shaking and Hackett has to issue the order to maintain position, continue to take losses and stay in the fight with Sovereign he's making the right call. 

[Zu Long]

marshalleck wrote...

Nope. Committing yourself to taking casualties when you don't know how much firepower you're going to need to take down Sovereign, or how much time you've even got for the attempt is not tactically correct.

Wrong. Worrying about factors outside of your control and which you have no way to accurately guess is the road to tactical ruin. You would expose your fleet to being defeated in detail to save time you can't even prove you'll need and refuse to sacrifice firepower immediately in favor of sacrificing firepower in the long run when you get cut apart from behind.

You already admitted you've got no idea how much punishment Sovereign can take but we ask ourselves a simple question; counted against the might the entirety of the fleet can bring to bare, will a few more cruisers really make the difference against it? What it comes down to is that either cruiser's CAN hurt it, in which case you have cruisers to spare, or cruisers CAN'T hurt it, in which case you're SOL anyway.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LGTX wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LGTX wrote...

My argument still stands. If Sovy could hack the Citadel himself, he wouldn't send Saren. Saren was dead. Sovy took control of Saren, so killing the latter became priority #1. Saving or not saving the Council had little to do with the odds against the final boss.

Sovy was doomed. He was locked up in his own creative rat trap but his parents weren't coming home anymore.

No, it doesn't. He sent Saren because Saren is his pawn. Ensurance if you will.

Being a pawn is reason enough? How is sending a relatively average, and KILLABLE, organic an ensurance, as opposed to using that supposed hyper intelligent machine god haxor skills?

Because he couldn't hack the Citadel from a distance. By having Saren in, it's double insurance - ensurance that the citadel won't close it's door into it's face and ensurance that he will be able to get a connection.

Also, I see yo uignored the rest of my point.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zu Long wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Zu Long wrote...
As I pointed out in an earlier post, time isn't a factor. 

You're wrong. Simply repeating it doesn't make it right. Shepard does NOT know that by the time the arms open, the situation with the geth would be decided. For all he knows it could bog the fleet down long enough to allow Sovereign to complete its work.

On the contrary, Shepard is an Alliance marine with some 11 years of experience. S/he has a pretty good idea of arcturus fleet's strength and the citadel systems would be able to give her info on the number of Geth assaulting the DA. S/he could easily estimate how the engagement will turn out and how long it will take.

Sheps is a marine..he's not a naval commander. When's the last tiem Shep was involved in ship comabt..with anyone? Let alone the Geth, who's ships were barely ever seen?
How the hell could Shep determine at all the length of a battle? That's impossible to tell, as naval warfare in history proved very well.

  Bioware ignores the tactical considerations for the more dramatic
consequences of the choice (Save the Council or Let them die), but the
simple fact is that destroying the geth prior to assaulting Sovereign is
the tactically correct option.

No.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zu Long wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Nope. Committing yourself to taking casualties when you don't know how much firepower you're going to need to take down Sovereign, or how much time you've even got for the attempt is not tactically correct.

Wrong. Worrying about factors outside of your control and which you have no way to accurately guess is the road to tactical ruin. You would expose your fleet to being defeated in detail to save time you can't even prove you'll need and refuse to sacrifice firepower immediately in favor of sacrificing firepower in the long run when you get cut apart from behind.

Time beging a factor is proven by Saren and his speech AND by Vigil.

Firewpoer in the long run won't matter if the reapers jump in.

You already admitted you've got no idea how much punishment Sovereign can take but we ask ourselves a simple question; counted against the might the entirety of the fleet can bring to bare, will a few more cruisers really make the difference against it? What it comes down to is that either cruiser's CAN hurt it, in which case you have cruisers to spare, or cruisers CAN'T hurt it, in which case you're SOL anyway.

That's just it - you don't know. But you want to risk the survival of the galaxy on it.

Also, crusers CAN hurt it, but I dont' have any to spare. - anotehr option you forgot to add.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 17 août 2011 - 12:50 .

[Zu Long]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No.

Um...Yes? I'll go with yes.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Zu Long wrote...
As I pointed out in an earlier post, time isn't a factor. 

You're wrong. Simply repeating it doesn't make it right. Shepard does
NOT know that by the time the arms open, the situation with the geth
would be decided. For all he knows it could bog the fleet down long
enough to allow Sovereign to complete its work.

On
the contrary, Shepard is an Alliance marine with some 11 years of
experience. S/he has a pretty good idea of arcturus fleet's strength and
the citadel systems would be able to give her info on the number of
Geth assaulting the DA. S/he could easily estimate how the engagement
will turn out and how long it will take.

Sheps is a
marine..he's not a naval commander. When's the last tiem Shep was
involved in ship comabt..with anyone? Let alone the Geth, who's ships
were barely ever seen?
How the hell could Shep determine at all the
length of a battle? That's impossible to tell, as naval warfare in
history proved very well.

A marine they appear to be confident in placing in command of a frigate. As a general rule, you don't put someone in command of a ship unless they have some knowledge of naval tactics. Also, the fact that Admiral Hacket wants Shepard's tactical opinion of the situation seems to indicate you should be able to come up with an answer.

As far as Shepard being able to determine how long an engagement will take you have a fleet of some 30-40 cruisers vs about 8 or so. The 30-40 have tactical and maneuvering superiority since they will already be moving and they will already know the enemy is there. They will be able to close to firing range scant seconds after exiting the relay. Warfare between cruisers in this universe seem to be mostly short, brutal engagements.

Once these factors are determined, it's not difficult to come up with the outcome.

Modifié par Zu Long, 17 août 2011 - 01:01 .

[Reikenji]

 Alrighty, as it's 'my' game I'm gonna explain my major decisions. I don't give a damn about being labelled paragon/renegade/paragade/renagon because it's all based on my thoughts.

ME:1: Prior to confirmation of the Reapers.

Feros: Saved the Colony

Having a human colony established and running on an ancient prothean world would hopefully advance our knowledge of the race that 'created the Relays' and thus also advance ourselves. Shame we couldn't convince the Thorian to back down and enter diplomatic channels, but what can you do.

Noveria: Released the Rachni Queen

Quite simply I felt that every species has a right to liveand she sounded like she wanted to atone for her species past crimes, so she has that chance. If she betrays my Shepards' goodwill then no second chances.

Virmire: Wrex Survived (Ashley/Kaidan have both died on different playthroughs)

I understood Wrexs' problem with us destroying the cure for his race, but I'm not killing a friend needlessly when reasoning will solve the issue. (Having his family armour also helps. )

^ I get this doesn't really come into the semantics of paragon/renegage but it is a major choice.

Post Sovereign Revelation:

Battle of the Citadel: Destiny Ascension Saved, Council Survived, Udina as Councillor

Now for this I figured having the largest Dreadnought in the known galaxy helping pound on Sovereign would be a big help; granted she was taking a pounding but there were many ships pounding on her, once she was given a breather there was a lot of additional firepower there. Also from a politcal viewpoint it made sense to keep those elected in power even if they didn't believe we could get to Ilos without starting a war with the Terminus Systems. As for Udina, I felt he was just doing his job by locking out the Normandy, and he is good at maneuvering the political landscape.

ME2: The Reapers Are Coming! Or are they? Collectors? What? *scratches head*

So as we don't have a clear view on all the major decisions here yet, I will just go with the assumed ones.

Mordins' Loyalty Mission: Saved the Genophage cure.

Quite an easy choice for me, the Krogans deserve a second chance in my mind, plus they make excellent troops to fight husks and other reaperised races.

Talis' Loyalty Mission: Pushed for Peace.

We've got enough problems with the Reapers without other races trying to continue a conflict that technically ended centuries ago. Besides, I like Legion and Tali.

Legions' Loyalty Mission: Destroyed the Heretic Base

Now here my decision was harder to make. Having all the Geth on your side for when the Reapers come is a nice idea. But as Legion himself stated that even after the rewrite they may still come to the same conclusion they had before; and so I didn't like the idea of them becoming enemies again and potentially converting Legions' Geth into foes too. Best to cut it off at the head.

Suicide Mission: Destroyed the Collector Base

To be honest having the technology might of proven useful, but quite frankly I don't trust Cerberus to use it ethically after stopping the Reapers. They'd rather 1UP the human race at the expense of the other races.


So.. I want humanity to do well, but not at the expense of the other races in the galaxy. Although I think after ME3 there will be little that is recognisable from the current galactic political and economic structures across all the races. But yeah, my choices my game.

(Disclaimer: I have made other decisions such as rewriting the heretics, focusing on Sovereign. Anderson as councillor etc just to see if anything changed during the playthroughs. Decisions above are made from my 'canon' Schepard viewpoint.)

If any of my other decisions during my 'canon version' of the game that you guys think are potentially major, I'll post them in here too.

Thanks.


Rei

[lovgreno]

Wow that was some impressive generalisations in the original post. It makes a complicated thing more easy I guess.

[azerSheppard]

Agamo45 wrote...

MacCready wrote...

Put your question in real life terms, for example, change pro-human to pro-white. Are you a paragon? No, you are a dick!

How about pro-American, or pro-Western in general? I think that's more accurate. Am I still a dick?

Americans are humanity now, everyone else aliens?

classic case of the universe revolving around the states....


Paragon = upholding human morale.
Renegade = Comprimising "humanity" of the character, in benefit of humanity.

[Zu Long]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Nope. Committing yourself to taking casualties when you don't know how much firepower you're going to need to take down Sovereign, or how much time you've even got for the attempt is not tactically correct.

Wrong. Worrying about factors outside of your control and which you have no way to accurately guess is the road to tactical ruin. You would expose your fleet to being defeated in detail to save time you can't even prove you'll need and refuse to sacrifice firepower immediately in favor of sacrificing firepower in the long run when you get cut apart from behind.

Time beging a factor is proven by Saren and his speech AND by Vigil.

Firewpoer in the long run won't matter if the reapers jump in.

Neither conversation indicates it's the "seconds to spare" kind of time you seem think Shepard's running on.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You already admitted you've got no idea how much punishment Sovereign can take but we ask ourselves a simple question; counted against the might the entirety of the fleet can bring to bare, will a few more cruisers really make the difference against it? What it comes down to is that either cruiser's CAN hurt it, in which case you have cruisers to spare, or cruisers CAN'T hurt it, in which case you're SOL anyway.

That's just it - you don't know. But you want to risk the survival of the galaxy on it.

Also, crusers CAN hurt it, but I dont' have any to spare. - anotehr option you forgot to add.

It's a gamble no matter what you do. You take the available data and go for the best option available, which is to destroy the enemy in detail while you can, freeing your forces to launch an all out assault without having to worry about a threat from behind you tearing you up.

Why would 38 cruisers somehow be able to defeat it quickly when 30 can't? It's just not logical to think that way.