1667 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Think before you post, SMW.

The Alliance team did something a lot worse than losing a dead Reaper in a star.

Like discovering Object Rho and at least planned to stop the Reaper invasion before they were indoctrinated?

Yeah, at least they were somewhat useful.

Cerberus' whole science team went up in smokes just to bring a small device to one of the airlocks. And they didn't even attempt to move the Reaper they found before starting to crawl in its belly.

It is funny how they managed to reinforce the structure and managed to set up several labs and bring supplies into the damn thing, though.

[Labrev]

Lengthy post of mine in now-locked topic, I'll leave its link here: http://social.biowar...ndex/8779480/24

And while I'm at it, address this post, as it relates greatly to mine.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I feel the need to adress some rather redicolous fears:

1. TIM/Cerberus will use the CB to build a reaper
There are many problems with this assertion:

- What makes you think TIM would do that? What possible gain can be made from this? It's REDICOLOUSLY impractical as means to fight the reapers (or anyone else for that matter). TIM may be many thing, but he isn't THAT stupid.

"Only two things are infinite in this world: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not even sure about the former!" - Albert Einstein.

I've seen plenty of stupid on Cerberus' part to not write off the posibility of him not being THAT stupid. This idea is more of a hope than a conclusion that one can safely arrive at.

- It requires many, many humans to make even a small reaper. It simply isn't practical or efficient. And of what use would it be agaisnt an army of a thousand reapers? And to continue this point, why worry about 1 possible extra reaper, when there's thousands coming? It's a drop in the ocean.

What use would it be? Another weapon to assist us. A single klendagon cannon or whatever it was helped "kill" a Reaper before, who's to say another Reaper can't be of use against the Reapers? It may be more worthwhile than all the people reaped to make it would be as ground-forces.

- Why make a reaper when you can equip a ship with reaper tech - thus having a ship with just as powerfull shields, engines, weapons, etc.. WITHOUT any problems of control or human abduction?

Unfortunately, that's not our call to make either way.
 

- What makes you sure the Alliance of Council wouldn't do the same?

Who said they'd hand it to them? Giving the base to the Alliance/Council is another whole story in itself.

2. We don't need the base
There is absolutely ZERO evidence for this. This isnt' a reasonable decuction in any way, shape or form.
What other viable resources to close the gap do we have beside the base?
We do have a few snippets of research, but it's worth is questionable at best  - and at no point has it been ever said, or even implied, that it is substantial, that it is enough, or that it even come close to the CB. But the last one should be pretty obvious. An entire base filled with tech enables a massive technological leap that is measured in CENTURIES. To say "we don't need it to defeat the reapers" is a statement that isn' based on any anything but wishfull thinking.

Don't need the base is not a claim I would make. However, the idea that is our ONLY option is another absolute claim that is holds no water. We have working knowledge now, and there will undoubtedly be further opportunity for more research/study during the war efforts. Those should be taking place regardless the base decision anyway.

There is minimal evidence about a massive technological leap measured in centuries too. It's just a guess, like guessing that the base won't be needed to win the war.

3. We can't give Cerberus the base, because it will do bad things with it afterwards
Another flawed argument.
It puts the fear and danger of Cerberus ahead of Reapers - which is beyond redicolous

No it's not. The worst tactical blunder one can make is to underestimate their enemy. You said it yourself, the base could contain massive technological knowledge/strength for whoever is left to salvage it. Who's to say that's not enough to make Cerberus as dangerous if not worse (especially if they choose to strike after the Reapers ravage the galaxy and are weaker than before)? Rhetorical question - the answer is no one. The possibilities for how they could use it are endless (and I detailed some of those in the post above).

It may seem unlikely, but it's not out of the question. And here's why:

The first order of buisness is to ensure the survival of the current life cycle in the galaxy. Sorting out the details is left for later. We only get one shot at survival here - if you mess up, there is no fxing it later. Yet some people glady gamble with the entire galaxy just to satisfy their twisted morals.

No. Nobody is going to fight for survival if it means living as a pisspot to one man/race/organization/nation/what-have-you. There is no difference beween that and getting reaped: either you die, or live as a slave.

The notion of "we fight or we die" is born of naiivete. If you fight for non-freedom, there's no difference between winning or losing to the Reapers. Either way, you're dead or a slave.

Not to mention how hte threat of Cerberus is over-inflated to redicolous proportions.
Assuming the races of the galaxy survive the reaper invasion, Cerberus won't be the only one with reaper tech anymore. The galaxy will be littered with reaper corpses for every faction to pick.

Assuming the races survive, therein you've posed an obvious threat. If given Reaper weapons, what's to stop Cerberus from wiping them all out beforehand to ensure they remain the strongest group in the galaxy and have a leg-up in control over everyone else, practicality? Who's to say an opportunity won't arise where they can safely do so without damaging the war efforts?

By the way, if you think that the galaxy will be littered with reaper corpses for us to pick up and use ourselves, the argument that we have no other alternatives outside the base suffers a bit.

Not to mention the base is only that - only one base. Cerberus isn't a big organization. Even with all the tech from that base, Cerberus cannot really stand against the entire galaxy - that's assuming it would even want to do something like that.

You see now where a double-standard has been formed? On one hand, the base has tech that can boost us forward centuries and it's absolutely necessary to maintain to fight the war. On the other, it's not enough to make Cerberus a serious threat. Lots of assumptions are being thrown around here, none with sound basis.

Cerberus may not be big. But in their small size, they're still very dangerous. They've threatened technological apocalypse. They've conducted rachni experiments that blew up in their face, dumping them on random planets where the Alliance had to clean up after them. Their failure on Teltin produced one of the galaxy's most notorious criminals in Jack. That's what they do on a small-scale, merely when conducting experiments (which they will be doing, on the base!)

BTW, there's plenty of reason to suppose they might want to stand against the galaxy. If any organization, Cerberus not withstanding, has the power (keyword: power, not just "strength" or "numbers") to do so then I should doubt that they would just sit on it.

So the whole "cerberus will conquer everyone" is ramping up the fear of an event that is so unlikely, you might as well start living in a bunker out of fear a small meteorite will hit you exactly on the head.

No, it is a legitimate long-term concern to consider, whether or not everybody wants to. It's not like I hold a grudge against Cerberus, I just recognize the danger that decision could pose.

Rachni Wars: short-term solution: have the krogan fight it. Long-term consequence: krogan are the new problem. Why? Because they had the power (this word again!) to do it after wiping out the previous biggest threat in the galaxy. It is not out-of-the-question to think the same scenario could manifest here.

Let's also take a step back and remember this is a video-game we're talking about, where such extreme/unlikely scenarios that I've been outlining here are more feasible of turning out than it probably would be in reality. It's not metagaming, not really. Just acknowledging that the "extreme" scenarios are not entirely extreme when dealing with a game. Extreme is par for the course and should be handled as such.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 07 décembre 2011 - 05:24 .

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hey, I know. Cerberus discovered a Reaper front and actually DID stop it!

That Reaper was already immobilized and pretty much brain dead. Then again, that seem like Cerberus. Taking credit for something that has already been dealt with.

If you're talking about this thing, that wasn't Cerberus. It was Shepard.

[Youknow]

 Probably, but I thought there would be more enemies if I left it there, so I left it there on one of my files. 

[111987]

Cerberus definitely deserves some credit for taking out the Collectors. That is unarguable, in my mind.

Handing them over the Collector Base might be too much of a 'thank you' though. Cerberus is willing to do whatever it takes to secure human dominance, against the Reapers and beyond. TIM never says anything about protecting the galaxy as a whole against the Reapers.

And in my opinion, the galaxy needs to work together to defeat the Reapers. Since I don't trust TIM to use the Collector Base to help everyone, I don't feel he should have it as letting only humanity have access to the tech would put them at odds with their alien allies, and TIM might even use the tech against the other races to ensure human dominance after the Reaper invasion.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

And in my opinion, the galaxy needs to work together to defeat the Reapers. Since I don't trust TIM to use the Collector Base to help everyone, I don't feel he should have it as letting only humanity have access to the tech would put them at odds with their alien allies, and TIM might even use the tech against the other races to ensure human dominance after the Reaper invasion.

This is going to sound insulting, but I assure you it isn't intended as such: economically and politically, do you consider yourself libertarian-capitalistic, or closer towards socialistic-communistic theories?

The reason I ask is what you posted sounds similar to some beliefs of economic progress.

Capitalistic-democracy is in large part formed under the belief of the invisible hand of the market, that consensus comes from everyone pursuing their own self interest. Rather than enforcing uniformity, allowing disreprencies and self-interest is the real generator of progress: a democratic-capitalist society is the output of greed and self-interest, but that output maximizes the good of everyone due to competing self-interests and the incentive effect. Obvious flaws are obvious, but 'out for his own interest' wouldn't be considered a flaw. So long as 'his interest' weren't counterproductive to the whole, they'd even be encouraged... and there are a lot more obvious ways in which Cerberus interests could be advanced by helping against the Reapers, than there are in siding with the Reapers.

Democratic-Socialism, as practiced in the modern way in some parts of Europe, sees wealth disreprencies as an evil and greater problem. Regulation isn't just used to keep the powerful from harming the weak: it's also about keeping the powerful from becoming powerful. Enforcing equality and pushing that towards a common cause, in effect. There are a lot of known failings in such systems (the more abolute the equality attempted, the worse the failings), but the belief that disreprency is a bigger problem then limiting output. In that general philosophy, specific self-interest would be considered a flaw, and allowing someone to rise above the rest would be a significant problem.


While those outlines are very, way, over-simplified, I think you can see what I'm trying to ask?

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

1.) It has nothing to do with saying "thank you" to Cerberus. You don't owe them anything. The point is not to pay Cerberus back, the point is to win the goddamn war about the Reapers.

You're so focused on Cerberus that you can't see the real threat! (sound familiar?)

That wasn't a serious point about needing to 'thank' Cerberus. I meant that despite them helping you, that doesn't mean they should be trusted without reserve.

Saphra Deden wrote...
2.) Cerberus being willing to do whatever it takes to secure human dominance and not really being interested in saving the galaxy as a whole shouldn't matter to you. I have a wake-up call for you: no faction out there is in it to save the galaxy out of any kind altruism. They are all going to be in this fight to save themselves. Saving the rest of the galaxy is a consquence of that.

You're missing the point here. Of course every faction is out to save themselves, but they were willing to do it through cooperation. Also, they are just trying to survive. Cerberus however, is trying both to survive and to make sure humanity emerges from the war as the most powerful force in the galaxy. There are numerous problems that could arise from this (eg. Cerberus sabotaging the other races at critical moments during a battle to ensure they take the heaviest losses).

Saphra Deden wrote...

So here's an idea. Instead of mistrusting and sabotaging Cerberus at every turn like your buddy Anderson maybe you could cooperate with them? They want to survive, they want to beat the Reapers. Towards that end they've extended multiple olive branches to their enemies. Maybe you could follow their example?

Funny how Cerberus are apparently the worst villains in the galaxy but they are the only ones willing to set aside old grudges and rivalries for the sake of survival.

Not giving Cerberus the Collector Base =/= sabotaging Cerberus.

If you think Cerberus really just wants to survive and beat the Reapers, and not assure humanity dominating the other races afterwards, you are mistaken.

Modifié par 111987, 07 décembre 2011 - 06:08 .

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

This is going to sound insulting, but I assure you it isn't intended as such: economically and politically, do you consider yourself libertarian-capitalistic, or closer towards socialistic-communistic theories?

The reason I ask is what you posted sounds similar to some beliefs of economic progress.

Capitalistic-democracy is in large part formed under the belief of the invisible hand of the market, that consensus comes from everyone pursuing their own self interest. Rather than enforcing uniformity, allowing disreprencies and self-interest is the real generator of progress: a democratic-capitalist society is the output of greed and self-interest, but that output maximizes the good of everyone due to competing self-interests and the incentive effect. Obvious flaws are obvious, but 'out for his own interest' wouldn't be considered a flaw. So long as 'his interest' weren't counterproductive to the whole, they'd even be encouraged... and there are a lot more obvious ways in which Cerberus interests could be advanced by helping against the Reapers, than there are in siding with the Reapers.

Democratic-Socialism, as practiced in the modern way in some parts of Europe, sees wealth disreprencies as an evil and greater problem. Regulation isn't just used to keep the powerful from harming the weak: it's also about keeping the powerful from becoming powerful. Enforcing equality and pushing that towards a common cause, in effect. There are a lot of known failings in such systems (the more abolute the equality attempted, the worse the failings), but the belief that disreprency is a bigger problem then limiting output. In that general philosophy, specific self-interest would be considered a flaw, and allowing someone to rise above the rest would be a significant problem.


While those outlines are very, way, over-simplified, I think you can see what I'm trying to ask?

I think that's a tough question. There are both strengths and weaknesses of both systems. I wouldn't presume to know which ultimately is better.

Regarding the fight against the Reapers though, I would say that true unity is more important than a 'competitive' alliance. I feel that if any side falters against the Reapers, pretty much everyone else will be doomed.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

...I'm speechless.

Because you agree?

[Labrev]

Why is building a Reaper stupid? To study a Reaper A.I. it would be useful to construct one, at least partially. The real question is HOW can TIM do it? He'd have to abduct millions of people, basically doing what the Collectors were doing.

Never called it stupid. In some cases, it may not be, even if it requires abducting millions. But, that's not our call to make either way. It's his, if he gets the base out of you. The question is if you trust his judgement (I think you know where I stand).

Question: if he is willing to do that then why did he stop the Collectors in the first place? Cerberus could have instead just partnered with them and gotten all the advanced technology they could ever want, perhaps spying on the Reapers in the process.

No, partnering with the Collectors is not a feasible solution in the least. The idea that by wiping them out he can acquire their strength is a logical one, and one he likely had.

Nobody has said it is, only that it could be.

I repeat: if you save the base but don't need it to defeat the Reapers then you are no worse off. However if you blow it up and then need it later you're screwed.

And there is an even worse alternative, follow along: the base creates a new threat in Cerberus that is (1) as bad; (2) worse; (3) close. Not a guarantee, but a possibility. In which case, now you've come full-circle, fighting the same enemy. Only this time, the base isn't yours, it's his.

Do you take that chance? I don't. I think it's a lot more feasible an outcome than people think.

There is minimal evidence about a massive technological leap measured in centuries too. It's just a guess, like guessing that the base won't be needed to win the war.
Minimal evidence? No, the Collectors are known to have advanced technology ahead of the galactic standard. They've had this technology for centuries. We also went up against their technology in ME2 and saw how advanced it was. The only way we were able to compete was because we already had some shards of Reaper technology we'd reverse engineered. Without the defeat of Sovereign it is unlikely we could have bested the Collectors.

We know for a fact Reapers are much more advanced than we are and we know the Collector base was building a Reaper.

So on what basis do you judge that the base may be worthless as a means of upgrading our technology?

No, minimal evidence is not the right wording here exactly. Just saying, it's a guess. Like saying we wouldn't need the base (admittedly, a more educated guess than that).

No it's not. The worst tactical blunder one can make is to underestimate their enemy.

Why is Cerberus an enemy?

They aren't now, doesn't mean they can't be later. And if they become one after being made to powerful to deal with, then it's too late.

No. Nobody is going to fight for survival if it means living as a pisspot to one man/race/organization/nation/what-have-you. There is no difference beween that and getting reaped: either you die, or live as a slave.

You really think the galaxy would rather be wiped out than defeat the Reapers and have humanity dominant afterwards? You are a lunatic. No wonder you are filled to the brim with some many delusions.

Oh, I'm sure everyone will fight it to survive themselves. It's just fighting together which is not a guarantee, especially if by one side helping another only leads to the dominance of the latter over the former. I guarantee you see this in ME3, nobody will drop everything to fight with you. I'm sure they'll rather fight alone if they don't get their stake in the galaxy after the war is over.

Such is the nature of my alliance with Cerberus. I'm not fighting for them to potentially dominate the galaxy, especially in the outcome where they become as bad as what I'm trying to fight in the first place: killing and taking slaves.

Let's also take a step back and remember this is a video-game we're talking about, where such extreme/unlikely scenarios that I've been outlining here are more feasible...

*whisper* Metagaming *whisper*

Nice try...

It's not metagaming, not really. Just acknowledging that extreme scenarios are not entirely extreme when dealing with a game. Extreme is par for the course and should be handeld as such.

The reason I say this is because, while it feels unlikely even to me, unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously. Especially not in a game. Regardless, the fact it is a game doesn't even change the decision I would make anyway, so the point is moot.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

Regarding the fight against the Reapers though, I would say that true unity is more important than a 'competitive' alliance. I feel that if any side falters against the Reapers, pretty much everyone else will be doomed.

How are you going to establish "true unity"? Sounds like a pipedream to me.

Tell me, is Cerberus' pro-human angle really so bad that you'd rather rob the galaxy of the potential boons of the Collector base?

You just aren't thinking rationally. What's worse: Cerberus using some advanced tech to weaken other races during the war so humanity emerges victorious or everybody being killed because they just can't defeat the Reapers? (which by the way makes your fears of Cerberus moot)

I repeat: you are have not thought this through very logically. Your stance does not make any sense.

True unity would just mean a unified front against the Reapers. Instead of, for example, the Asari, Turians, And Salarians working together against the Reapers, and then on the other side of the galaxy you have the Krogans, Humans, and Quarians work together, you have ALL the races in a single alliance.

Yes, and I've already explained why Cerberu's pro-human 'angle' (which is a huge understatement) is a detriment to the fight against the Reapers. Since you never address my entire arguments, you just skipped over it.

Your argument suggests that we can't defeat the Reapers without the Collector Base. I believe otherwise.

You keep telling me I'm not being rational, but you hardly address any of the points I raise, and I remain unconvinced that destroying the Collector Base dooms the galaxy, as you imply.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

I think that's a tough question. There are both strengths and weaknesses of both systems. I wouldn't presume to know which ultimately is better.

Regarding the fight against the Reapers though, I would say that true unity is more important than a 'competitive' alliance. I feel that if any side falters against the Reapers, pretty much everyone else will be doomed.

I'm not asking which you think is ultimately better. I'm asking which one you lean towards more.

Capitalism believes that competitive-arrangements spur more output and good. Socialism believes that true unity is both possible and desirable.

Both obviously have flaws. Capitalistic thought can turn from 'seek the best path to maximize your gains' to 'sabaogate your rivals': competition, rather than cooperation.  Communist belief of economic 'true unity' fails to accept that true unity is not possible, and does not exist, and that the inequalities will remain. One can see maximum-advantage turn into self-destruction: the other can ignore that people pursue personal advantage regardless of the form.


Without going into specific ME3 spoilers, for example, I can say that none of the other species and governments in Shepard's group are believers in 'True Unity': perhaps the only person who is is Shepard. We saw this in the E3 demos, for example, when the Krogan leader (Wrex or Wreave) is holding cooperation with the Turians hostage to the retrieval of fertile females. The Quarians are fighting the Geth for the homeworld, and the Geth are fighting for the Reapers for their own reason.  Heavy spoilers reveal even more.

Cerberus is not somehow exceptional in its pursuit of its own interest: most the groups in the galaxy are not only pursuing their own interests, but holding their Unity hostage to Shepard helping them do so. (This would be the socialist-fallacy of ignoring human nature to focus on individuals who express greed, while capitalism accepts human greed as a matter of course.)

[PauseforEffect]

<_<
*sigh* Why did the OP feel it necessary to post this?

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I said Reaper "FRONT", smart guy. I was talking about the Collectors. Shepard doesn't even get half the credit because Shepard doesn't figure this **** out without Cerberus and wouldn't have the means to do anything about without Cerberus. He uses Cerberus intel, money, weapons, armor, and assets. He even takes orders from them.

Not anymore.

Again, if they were so smart, they wouldn't need the Collector base to study a Reaper.

But, their scientists must be really lagging behind when it comes to procedures and security, because no organization in real life would just throw themselves into unknown territories without looking for potential dangers first.

Especially the ones that are as painfully obvious as the dangers aboard a Reaper.

By the way, they really knew what they were doing when they built the Normandy, didn't they? Daily diagnosis checks that could have been easily avoided to allow the engineers to focus on something more important and the second the drive core overloads, it vents into the engineering room, incinerating anyone that's in there.

They didn't even try to improve the armor plating.

Getting access to armor and weapons isn't that hard either, considering how many armor lockers and weapon shops we've run across. Not to mention that most of the weapons weren't even designed by Cerberus.

So you know what? They can keep their money. They can keep their intel (especially the ones that leads me into traps) and they can keep their assets.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

True unity would just mean a unified front against the Reapers.

Right, which can include Cerberus and the Collector base and every faction subtly working the angles to ensure they ermerge from this conflict intact. That's how national alliances work.

Right, yet Cerberus is hated by all the other governments, and has an ulterior motive that is a detriment to the war effort.

Saphra Deden wrote...

11997 wrote...

Yes, and I've already explained why Cerberu's pro-human 'angle' (which is a huge understatement) is a detriment to the fight against the Reapers. Since you never address my entire arguments, you just skipped over it.

It's because your arguments are poorly thought-out dog ****.

You can't have a proper debate unless you actually refute the other side's argument. Saying that the arguments are stupid and yet not elaborating doesn't accomplish anything. Plus, it's just rude.

Saphra Deden wrote...


NO. NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never said that godDAMN you!

I only said it was possible! I'd rather have the Collector base and not need it than need it and not have it!

Common sense!

What the hell is wrong with you people????????

"What's worse: Cerberus using some advanced tech to weaken other races
during the war so humanity emerges victorious or everybody being killed
because they just can't defeat the Reapers?"-Saphra Deden

I said your argument suggests the Collector Base is needed to win. How can you possibly not see the above quote as an indication of that?