408 réponses à ce sujet

[Golden Owl]

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

The the f- does everyone put the asari so high on their list? They're friggin' useless against the reapers!

Oh, epic biotics? Big deal! I take massive firepower over biotics anytime any day of the week!

Does the future beyond the Reaper war not count at all?

If we don't stop the reapers there won't be any future beyond the reaper war.

Face it, militairy power and expertise is the most important thing now. And the asari seriously lack in that area.

True and fair point Luc0s....though future beyond the Reaper War does need to be kept in account also.

Yes but if saving the asari would mean you lose more militairy power (to save them) than you gain (by saving them), would you still do it?

If it takes (for example) 500 ships to save the asari and you'll only get 250 asari ships in return to join your fleet, is that a smart deal?

Now you are trying to push for 'absolutes' Luc0s....that just ends up in a vicious circle of useless arguments....I would rather not tackle absolutes.

[SandTrout]

Golden Owl wrote...

Now you are trying to push for 'absolutes' Luc0s....that just ends up in a vicious circle of useless arguments....I would rather not tackle absolutes.

Which is very telling. I prefer absolutes to subjective BS. Absolutes do not generally create circular arguments, once a premise is decided.

Modifié par SandTrout, 21 août 2011 - 11:11 .

[Golden Owl]

SandTrout wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Now you are trying to push for 'absolutes' Luc0s....that just ends up in a vicious circle of useless arguments....I would rather not tackle absolutes.

Which is very telling. I prefer absolutes to subjective BS. Absolutes do not generally create circular arguments, once a premise is decided.

Absolutes are the push people make when ground is being lost and takes what could an inspiring debate to pointless levels of ridiculous instead.

[SandTrout]

Without giving your decisions some hypothetical basis, though, the concepts become ridiculously abstract and practically impossible to discuss. I hate people who refuse to explain how their morals/philosophies/beliefs would actually apply, which is essentially what you are doing by trying to avoid 'absolutes'.

If an idea cannot be applied to reality, then I refuse to grant it any value.

[Golden Owl]

SandTrout wrote...

Without giving your decisions some hypothetical basis, though, the concepts become ridiculously abstract and practically impossible to discuss. I hate people who refuse to explain how their morals/philosophies/beliefs would actually apply, which is essentially what you are doing by trying to avoid 'absolutes'.

If an idea cannot be applied to reality, then I refuse to grant it any value.

I have no problem with hypothetical at all....though when it is being used as a justification for someone attempting to force another into a corner in the hopes that it will force them to concede or agree...it is then nothing more than a cheap method....As for the answer to his question, if you must know, then it is 'yes...in those circumstances, I would sacrifice the Asari'...now you have the answer your pushing for also, though it is completely irrelevant due to the fact that if I had answered in the negative, either yourself or Luc0s would have insisted in trying to draw the noose around me with further and further absolutes trying to get the answer you want....I really have no time for that cr*p.

[Golden Owl]

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Now you are trying to push for 'absolutes' Luc0s....that just ends up in a vicious circle of useless arguments....I would rather not tackle absolutes.

Absolutes are the only thing that can keep the discussion going forward and not in circle. I'm describing a "what if" scenario here so it's easier for each other to understand where we're coming from and where we draw our lines.

As I think it's most reasonable ot believe the asari lack in firepower, I think it's not a strategic move to waste militairy power in an attempt at saving the asari.

Militairy power and some scientific experts are our only hope of survival against the reapers.


I'm just saying, that it's not strategic to try to save a team/nation/race if the loss will be bigger than the reward.


Edit: And yes, it's reasonable to assume that the asari militairy power that can be added to our fleet once we saved them does not match up again the military power we'll lose in our attempt at saving them.

Read my above post to Sandtrout Luc0s....I address my thoughts there.

Modifié par Golden Owl, 21 août 2011 - 12:07 .

[SuperEngineer]

I would save all species because my shepard is a
 

[Golden Owl]

Luc0s wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...

Read my above post to Sandtrout Luc0s....I address my thoughts there.

So I see.

So in the end, you do agree that if the militairy power that we'd gain is less than the militairy power we'd lose, it's best to not waste militairy resources on it?

Okay, so when it turns out to that the asari have not enough militairy power to cover the losses if we would make an attempt at saving them, you'd not make that attempt at saving them?


It's okay if your answer is "no", but then I'm really curious how you would explain your answer.

You asked for an 'absolute', I have made it clear as to how pointless I feel that is and don't see the point in trying to push this subject even further.

As for if they answer had been 'no', I think thats being addressed in the other thread as we debate between the two....now they are just melding with each other....as are my thoughts on species survivals including militaristic.

[Warlocomotf]

I find the assertions that an all human council would be more helpful towards other (non-council) species by definition- to be silly.

First, the evidence of the old council to be anti-non-council races to be weak.
Requiring to see humans for more than a few decades before allowing them into the council simply makes perfect sense; until you're given adequate time to observe them you can't see the internal conflict, social factors- etc. Plus, if you look at humans there are plenty of reasons to be hesitant to allow them into the council.

They did make a rather harsh decision in light of the morning war- completely distancing themselves; however on this forum there are plenty of people who agree with that decision also- so you can't really argue that everyone agrees they should've intervened (additionally, we really don't know all the political details of that era).

Finally, it's true there are not yet any volus in the council; and I agree that requiring contributing through having an army in order to join the council is really kind of silly. But it's not like the council has actually been holding the Volus back- they allowed the volus to expand their territory immensely.

Finally; hate the council all you want- but in Mass Effect 1 the council was simply right. The evidence provided was extremely questionable (even the evidence against Saren was so weak that there's little chance it would hold up in a current day court room).

Also, the question of this thread is not "Who would you have as your allies against the reapers", it is "who would you save?". The implication is of the question is certainly which species you would want to survive after the reaper invasion is over.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Warlocomotf wrote...

I find the assertions that an all human council would be more helpful towards other (non-council) species by definition- to be silly.

First, the evidence of the old council to be anti-non-council races to be weak.
Requiring to see humans for more than a few decades before allowing them into the council simply makes perfect sense; until you're given adequate time to observe them you can't see the internal conflict, social factors- etc. Plus, if you look at humans there are plenty of reasons to be hesitant to allow them into the council.[/quote]Except time exposure isn't what the Council cares about either. There are species who have waited over a thousand years as model citizens (the Volus, who built the galactic economy and can't start wars) who have been left waiting, while of the three Council species, one was let it immediately after it's galactic appearance (the Turian intervention in the Krogan Rebellions),  while the Asari and Salarians started the Council themselves upon meeting.

'A few decades' is no more impertinent than a thousand years.

[quote]
They did make a rather harsh decision in light of the morning war- completely distancing themselves; however on this forum there are plenty of people who agree with that decision also- so you can't really argue that everyone agrees they should've intervened (additionally, we really don't know all the political details of that era).[//quote]Certainly you can. The Council declared the Geth to be a malevelent threat when they blamed it on the Quarians, and still did nothing.

There are certain things that need proof against before they can be invalidated.
[quote]
Finally, it's true there are not yet any volus in the council; and I agree that requiring contributing through having an army in order to join the council is really kind of silly. But it's not like the council has actually been holding the Volus back- they allowed the volus to expand their territory immensely.[/quote]Except the Volus have to gain Council approval for colonization, and submit to Council regulations: that they can profit even so doesn't mean that they wouldn't do better if they were involved in writing the rules. If you carry a heavy load a distance, simply completing the distance doesn't mean you weren't burdened.

When the Volus saw joining the Turians (who have a voice on the Council) as an improvement worth trading sovereignty for, then yes: the Council has been holding back the Volus from what they could do if they had a seat themselves.

[quote]
Finally; hate the council all you want- but in Mass Effect 1 the council was simply right. The evidence provided was extremely questionable (even the evidence against Saren was so weak that there's little chance it would hold up in a current day court room).[/quote]Correction: the Council was wrong (Shepard proved that), but had reasonable basis to be. An important difference.

[spurkis]

Luc0s wrote...

spurkis wrote...

The Asari have atleast one ship that is superior to essentially ever other ship in the Citadel fleets, both offensively and defensively. That says something about their vessel technology. Friggin useless against the Reapers? Wut. 

How is one ship suppose to make a difference? If those asari build 50 of those Destiny Ascentions, THEN I'd say the asari are worth saving (first).

That one ship made a pretty big difference at the end of Mass Effect. But that's not really irrelevant, the point is that they can build very impressive ships. If they co-operated with the turians to mass-produce them... that's one of the many reasons why I'd save the turians and the asari before the humans.

Modifié par spurkis, 21 août 2011 - 01:46 .

[spurkis]

Saphra Deden wrote...

spurkis wrote...

That one ship made a pretty big difference at the end of Mass Effect.

Umm... sure, if you consider being a hindrance and of no use at all a "big difference". It certainly wasn't doing anything useful in that battle. All it did was fly around and need to be rescued.

Useless.

The commander of the ship being helpless doesn't deny the ship's actual power, so your argument is invalid. It wasn't designed for the relatively close quarters battle, but it still managed to keep dozens of geth frigates busy for a good while. 

[spurkis]

How do you know it didn't do anything? From what I understand, they were trying to boost away with the council on board, but got stuck and fought instead.
The technology is still there, and with turian help they could mass-produce them when facing a galactic threat that they are smart enough to not be afraid to use their ships.

[Warlocomotf]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except time exposure isn't what the Council cares about either. There are species who have waited over a thousand years as model citizens (the Volus, who built the galactic economy and can't start wars) who have been left waiting, while of the three Council species, one was let it immediately after it's galactic appearance (the Turian intervention in the Krogan Rebellions),  while the Asari and Salarians started the Council themselves upon meeting.

'A few decades' is no more impertinent than a thousand years.

I find that evidence highly anecdotal. If you follow conversation within the citadel tower- it's fairly obvious that most people there actualy find it quite plausible that humans will succeed in joining the council shortly.

Also, your knowledge of Volus history comes directly from the Volus ambassador, not exactly the most unbiased source of information. Throughout the games you see a number of Volus involved in corruption, trying to hire you as assassin, and often other illegal activity. I'm not saying all volus are corrupt and greedy- I am saying that we don't know the species well enough to make a good judgement on wether or not they really should be on the council.

Also, there's absolutely no evidence that council races are less burdoned by bureaucracy than non-council races (ie: Volus).

Certainly you can. The Council declared the Geth to be a malevelent threat when they blamed it on the Quarians, and still did nothing.

There are certain things that need proof against before they can be invalidated.

I agree they made a bad decision- but I don't see how doing nothing makes them any more self interested than getting involved. The Council declaring the Geth malevolent is not something that counts for only the Quarians- if they deem them a threat they themselves are also at risk.

If anything, this makes them negligent. Which I agree is bad, but it's not a bad that is inherent to a multi race or single race council. A single race council has just as much reason to be negligent.

Except the Volus have to gain Council approval for colonization, and submit to Council regulations: that they can profit even so doesn't mean that they wouldn't do better if they were involved in writing the rules. If you carry a heavy load a distance, simply completing the distance doesn't mean you weren't burdened.

Are you saying there should be no burdons? Sorry but deregulating everything sounds like a recipe for disaster on a galactic scale.

When the Volus saw joining the Turians (who have a voice on the Council) as an improvement worth trading sovereignty for, then yes: the Council has been holding back the Volus from what they could do if they had a seat themselves.

Did they join the Turians in hopes of gaining more power with the council? I thought they made this connection for other (military) reasons. Which frankly makes sense, everyone has an army- it would be incredibly silly to have considerable monetary resources whilst having absolutely no significant means of defending it.

Correction: the Council was wrong (Shepard proved that), but had reasonable basis to be. An important difference.

Based on the information they had available they made a good judgement. They may have been wrong, but their judgement was still sound. There is absolutely no good reason to decry the ME1 council as intentionally thick (In ME2 I think you have a better argument- but your interaction with the council in ME2 is minor at best; and ME2 should not serve as a basis for your ME1 decisions).

[Confused-Shepard]

Only SITH deal in absolutes. I thought all you Bioware fans would know that.

Honestly, if a Human child, an Asari child, a Turian child and a Salarian child were all trapped in a burning building I would try to save them all regardless of skin color or planet of origin without regard to my own personal safety. We cannot achieve true peace if we start picking sides the moment any crisis occurs.

I'm not trying to be noble or goodie-goodie or a blind pure Paragon.
That's just the kind of person I am.

Don't blame civilians and soldiers for the mistakes of politicians

[spurkis]

Saphra Deden wrote...

spurkis wrote...

How do you know it didn't do anything?

As soon as the battle began the DA wanted to retreat, which it then failed to do.

So what was it even there for? You say it can't fight at short range. Well the nebula is more than big enough for the DA to fight.

Why was it there anyway? Why wasn't it at the front of the fleets expecting to take the first hit from Saren's forces? Instead it was tucked away behind the frontlines.

Seems like the whole fleet was placed in the front of the Citadel while the enemies rushed in in spiked formation. I don't know why they didn't use all the space. 
Good questions, but I blame it on bad tacticians who were drugged in the illusion of peace.