1667 réponses à ce sujet

[DiebytheSword]

Luc0s wrote...

Keeping the Collector base is just as good/bad as destroying it is. Anyone who thinks (without meta-gaming) one choice is better than the other, is deluding himself.


Keeping the base might be a risk, since TIM can't be trusted, so keeping the base could mean we don't only have to worry about the reapers, but also about TIM with his reaper-milkshake-machine.

Destroying the base might be a risk, since we might not stand a chance against the reapers and the base might contain technology that could turn around the odds, giving us a better chance to defeat the reapers.

That is more or less my opinion, it all comes down to how you assess risk and what you are willing to sacrifice or wager as sacrificial.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Subferro wrote...

 First, I haven't seen anyone say we're going to beat them with "unity", or a personal favorite from a few pages ago "good intentions". But I guess it would hamper your argument if you couldn't put words in our mouth.

Second, how does the base change those numbers?

Or are you basing your argument on as much speculation as anyone else?

If you can't be bothered to read, I can't be bothered to hunt this post for answers. They're in the previous posts. Look around.

As for how the base changes thos numbers: because technolgoy changes those numbers. Base is a confirmed source of tech, acessible before the reaprs come. Do the math.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Luc0s wrote...

Keeping the Collector base is just as good/bad as destroying it is. Anyone who thinks (without meta-gaming) one choice is better than the other, is deluding himself.

:lol::lol:

Good show Sir. I needed a laugh.

[AlexXIV]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Keeping the Collector base is just as good/bad as destroying it is. Anyone who thinks (without meta-gaming) one choice is better than the other, is deluding himself.


Keeping the base might be a risk, since TIM can't be trusted, so keeping the base could mean we don't only have to worry about the reapers, but also about TIM with his reaper-milkshake-machine.

Destroying the base might be a risk, since we might not stand a chance against the reapers and the base might contain technology that could turn around the odds, giving us a better chance to defeat the reapers.

That is more or less my opinion, it all comes down to how you assess risk and what you are willing to sacrifice or wager as sacrificial.

I really think it is not necessary to make a 100% calculated choice. I for one make morale choices unless I am mostly sure that it would not work out. If I knew, for example, that keeping the base would 99% benefit our war efforts, then I'd screw morals. But as it is we still only have guesses. One guess may be better or more educated as the other, but bottomline none of the choices is safe. So why not choose the morale higher ground ...

[DPSSOC]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Except that the Lazarus Project wasn't complete.  It's pointed out by Jacob and Miranda that you weren't done yet.  Also I never said any of those projects failed, they got the desired results, but you'll note that next to none of the people who participated in those projects survived to reap the benefits of their work.  As for successful projects that don't have a massive casualty list care to offer a few?

Shep is alive and in perfect health. Looks like a sucess to me. Also, we dont' know if everyone there died.

As far as researchers dying - if their work was documented (and it is), then it's not a faliure.

Read the bold Skippy.  A project can succeed and still be a complete and utter disaster, almost every Cerberus op we run into falls into this category.  Teltin is a good example; they succeeded in their goal (creating super biotics), but the facility was ripped apart by said super biotic and the staff and remaining test subjects were killed.  Successful project, complete disaster.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So a picture of a reaper is suddenly "valubale chematics". Thet didn't look liek schematics to me.

Hmm re-reading what I wrote and, surprise, I never once used to the word valuable, perhaps you should stop making up things to argue against, it'll save you a lot of wear and tear.  As for the image I see a detailed depiction of a Reaper from 3 perspectives (side, top, front) with annotations, and having spent many years making working drawings of various pieces of equipment that's generally how they open up.  You start with an overview of the object (perspectives and an axonometric representation) then explode it into component parts (showing how they connect) and follow it up with detail drawings of each component part.

And you  can find a million similar images that give you a perspective without being actualy blueprints.
I cna find similar images for ships everywhere - form sci fi warships to real naval vessels - and none of htem are blueprints.

True but let's consider context shall we.  Nobody on the Normandy has seen Harbinger, even the holographic depiction at the end, so none of them could have produced that image.  So the image must have been mined from the Collector bases computers by EDI.  Furthermore Joker brings the image directly to Shepard rather than anything regarding repairs (their most pressing concern at the moment).  This would indicate the information is at least potentially valuable.  If all it were was 3 views of Harbinger and some notes it'd be worthless, we already have an idea of what Reapers look like and any info that could get gathered from the image alone would have already been gathered from images and sensor data on Sovereign.

I could be wrong but the way that scene's handled gives the impression that the image is more than just a pretty picture of Harbinger.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Also, why WOULD the reaeprs store the blueprints in their base computers? Harbie controled hte collectors directly and he's a super-sentient-AI.

Exactly he controlled the Collectors.  We see in our first glimpse of the Collector General that he utilizes interfaces on the base.  So it seems to me that Harbinger doesn't have a direct link to the base which would require him to input construction data and processes into the facility through the Collectors.

[Ravensword]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Cerberus supporters kinda remind me of National Socialists.

Fixed.

That too. 

No. Just one of those. I would use the short form of National Socialism, but that requires an N followed by an A, then a Z and finally, an I. Put them together on the BSN and you get this: ****

While we are the minority the supposed majority on here would rather see systematically deported and killed?

Don't worry. I won't let Cerberus perform brutal experiments on you against your will.

[Labrev]

Ravensword wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

While we are the minority the supposed majority on here would rather see systematically deported and killed?

Don't worry. I won't let Cerberus perform brutal experiments on you against your will.

Against his will? Kaiser would happily oblige himself to TIM's torture-chambers.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
I really think it is not necessary to make a 100% calculated choice. I for one make morale choices unless I am mostly sure that it would not work out. If I knew, for example, that keeping the base would 99% benefit our war efforts, then I'd screw morals. But as it is we still only have guesses. One guess may be better or more educated as the other, but bottomline none of the choices is safe. So why not choose the morale higher ground ...

Because it's not the moral high ground.
Risking the survival of your (and other species) to satisfy your moral itch is as ammoral as you can go.
It's putting one's own ego and piece of mind above the life of others.


And allow me to go a bit off a tangent:
Interesting how sacrificing your life to save someone else is noble... And it is considered noble because life is precious.
Yet at the same time, if somoene decides to sacrifice his own morals/soul to save siomeone else...it's not. How I ask? Isn't ones soul infinitely more valubable than one's life? Isn't one person sacrificing far mroe than the other?

[Lotion Soronarr]

DPSSOC wrote...
Read the bold Skippy.  A project can succeed and still be a complete and utter disaster, almost every Cerberus op we run into falls into this category.  Teltin is a good example; they succeeded in their goal (creating super biotics), but the facility was ripped apart by said super biotic and the staff and remaining test subjects were killed.  Successful project, complete disaster.

Oxymoron.

If the project was sucesfull, it's not a complete disaster.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And you  can find a million similar images that give you a perspective without being actualy blueprints.
I cna find similar images for ships everywhere - form sci fi warships to real naval vessels - and none of htem are blueprints.

True but let's consider context shall we.  Nobody on the Normandy has seen Harbinger, even the holographic depiction at the end, so none of them could have produced that image.  So the image must have been mined from the Collector bases computers by EDI.

You sure that's no your average reaper? Or Sovereing?
Also, the image of how a ship looks is different from a deck crosssection is different from actual blueprints.

One is just an overview to give you a sence of scale and general idea.
The other gives you some idea of internal decks and placement of systems.
The third is actual in-depth knowledge.

Furthermore Joker brings the image directly to Shepard rather than anything regarding repairs (their most pressing concern at the moment).  This would indicate the information is at least potentially valuable.  If all it were was 3 views of Harbinger and some notes it'd be worthless, we already have an idea of what Reapers look like and any info that could get gathered from the image alone would have already been gathered from images and sensor data on Sovereign.

It didn't look to me like repairs were a pressing concern. Ship seemed to hold together jsut fine.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Also, why WOULD the reaeprs store the blueprints in their base computers? Harbie controled hte collectors directly and he's a super-sentient-AI.

Exactly he controlled the Collectors.  We see in our first glimpse of the Collector General that he utilizes interfaces on the base.  So it seems to me that Harbinger doesn't have a direct link to the base which would require him to input construction data and processes into the facility through the Collectors.

But if he has direct link to the director, he can control them directly. They would know exactly what to do without any need for bluprints, because Harbi is the one to know it all, and hte Collectors are his little puppets.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Saphra Deden wrote...

If you are going to be that vague then every choice, any choice, anywhere, in any universe, is equal.

I'm gonna throw myself off the cliff without a parachute. After all, the parachute may fail. And God may intervene and send angels to stop my fall. Both are equally likely.

So both choices are good......

[DiebytheSword]

Saphra Deden wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

That is more or less my opinion, it all comes down to how you assess risk and what you are willing to sacrifice or wager as sacrificial.

Just as long as you accept that people will judge your assessment and judge you.

I don't have any problems with people judging me on my actions.  That is for them to decide; I can no more control that than I can the orbit of the earth.

More to the point, every individual will judge differently.  You could no more speak for them than Shepard could speak for the soul of humanity.

Modifié par DiebytheSword, 15 décembre 2011 - 09:24 .

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I really think it is not necessary to make a 100% calculated choice. I for one make morale choices unless I am mostly sure that it would not work out. If I knew, for example, that keeping the base would 99% benefit our war efforts, then I'd screw morals. But as it is we still only have guesses. One guess may be better or more educated as the other, but bottomline none of the choices is safe. So why not choose the morale higher ground ...

Because it's not the moral high ground.
Risking the survival of your (and other species) to satisfy your moral itch is as ammoral as you can go.
It's putting one's own ego and piece of mind above the life of others.


And allow me to go a bit off a tangent:
Interesting how sacrificing your life to save someone else is noble... And it is considered noble because life is precious.
Yet at the same time, if somoene decides to sacrifice his own morals/soul to save siomeone else...it's not. How I ask? Isn't ones soul infinitely more valubable than one's life? Isn't one person sacrificing far mroe than the other?

Well tough question. Especially since I don't really believe that a soul exists. I think though that Shepard is an example for others. And as such a multiplier. Meaning alot of young new soldiers/spectres will ... at least try ... to use Shepard and his/her actions as a guide for their own life/duty. That's the only thing heroes are good for anyway, since we all know that a person that is supposed to be a hero or supposedly was a hero may not really have been all that heroic in reality. Anyway, many people need someone to look up to. And if they do, they should at least look up to someone of a half-way good character.

Also I don't believe 'life' being the most important thing in ... well, life. Of course it is too good to throw away, but there are things worth sacrificing for. For example classic virtues. If humankind ever turns into a species that does not know any morale or virtue anymore then it also has lost it's value and as such is undeserving of life as much as Reapers are. I am not going to fight for a humanity that is not better than the Reapers. If I did, then I would really not know what I am fighting for. People live and die regardless. But evolving into a society that is actually humane, fair, compassionate, etc. is a goal that is really worth fighting for.

If you really think I want to save humans or aliens because life is precious then you got me wrong. I fight for them because they have potential for greatness. True greatness in turning the galaxy into a place that is actually worth living, for everyone. If I thought this could not happen one day, I wouldn't waste my breath for them. Even less my sweat or blood.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 15 décembre 2011 - 01:58 .

[Shepard the Leper]

AlexXIV wrote...

If humankind ever turns into a species that does not know any morale or virtue anymore then it also has lost it's value and as such is undeserving of life as much as Reapers are. I am not going to fight for a humanity that is not better than the Reapers. If I did, then I would really not know what I am fighting for. People live and die regardless. But evolving into a society that is actually humane, fair, compassionate, etc. is a goal that is really worth fighting for.

Since when have humans known "morale" or "virtue"? AFAIK humans are the only species who deliberately hurt, harm, and kill their own and other species (for the lulz). The so-called "human rights" crowd are (mostly) spoiled brats who haven't seen or experienced any hardship in their lives. To be perfectly clear, life is a tough struggle for survival. It always has been and always will be. That does not mean one cannot be kind or generous, but it does mean that fighting for the "right" cause is delusional at best.

All species kill other species to survive. That's the only rule Mother Nature uses. Have you considered the posibility that the Reapers have to kill (harvest) other beings to stay alive themselves? If so, how does that make them any different than you or me eating [enter whatever food you like]?

In nature there are two forms of aggression: aggression against ones own kind and against other species. The former (which includes (human) warfare) is highly ritualistic and based on rules (most species don't mortally wound or kill their rivals - piranhas, for example, never bite each other but use their tails to determine who's the strongest). The latter doesn't have any rules - all means are justified to kill prey to ensure survival.

The fight against the Reapers is a very simple one. You either win (and survive) or lose (and everybody dies). I don't see how or when stuff like morals and virtues come into the equation. Your argument is similar to someone who goes to war but isn't going to harm anyone because that's against his/her morals. That's ridiculous.

Blowing up the Collector base is the dumbest thing one can do. Unless you think a wolf, who lets her pups starve to death because she thinks hurting lambs is morally wrong, is doing the "right" thing ...

Modifié par Shepard the Leper, 15 décembre 2011 - 02:38 .

[AlexXIV]

Well I see you are a sceptic. I didn't say it is happening today. But one day. We have come a long way from cavemen over warlords and dictators of all kinds to who we are today. It may not be perfect yet, but the improvement is clearly there. Ask any black people for example in the USA how life is today and how it was 50 or 60 years ago. Not perfect but better. Ask woman who nowadays can vote, which wasn't always so. Look at wellfare organisations. Look at rising numbers of vegetarians/vegans.

Of course you can paint it all black. But that's your decision and, frankly, your own fault. I for one prefer to think that things are getting better, even if slowly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I really think it is not necessary to make a 100% calculated choice. I for one make morale choices unless I am mostly sure that it would not work out. If I knew, for example, that keeping the base would 99% benefit our war efforts, then I'd screw morals. But as it is we still only have guesses. One guess may be better or more educated as the other, but bottomline none of the choices is safe. So why not choose the morale higher ground ...

Because it's not the moral high ground.
Risking the survival of your (and other species) to satisfy your moral itch is as ammoral as you can go.
It's putting one's own ego and piece of mind above the life of others.


And allow me to go a bit off a tangent:
Interesting how sacrificing your life to save someone else is noble... And it is considered noble because life is precious.
Yet at the same time, if somoene decides to sacrifice his own morals/soul to save siomeone else...it's not. How I ask? Isn't ones soul infinitely more valubable than one's life? Isn't one person sacrificing far mroe than the other?

Well tough question. Especially since I don't really believe that a soul exists. I think though that Shepard is an example for others. And as such a multiplier. Meaning alot of young new soldiers/spectres will ... at least try ... to use Shepard and his/her actions as a guide for their own life/duty. That's the only thing heroes are good for anyway, since we all know that a person that is supposed to be a hero or supposedly was a hero may not really have been all that heroic in reality. Anyway, many people need someone to look up to. And if they do, they should at least look up to someone of a half-way good character.

Also I don't believe 'life' being the most important thing in ... well, life. Of course it is too good to throw away, but there are things worth sacrificing for. For example classic virtues. If humankind ever turns into a species that does not know any morale or virtue anymore then it also has lost it's value and as such is undeserving of life as much as Reapers are. I am not going to fight for a humanity that is not better than the Reapers. If I did, then I would really not know what I am fighting for. People live and die regardless. But evolving into a society that is actually humane, fair, compassionate, etc. is a goal that is really worth fighting for.

If you really think I want to save humans or aliens because life is precious then you got me wrong. I fight for them because they have potential for greatness. True greatness in turning the galaxy into a place that is actually worth living, for everyone. If I thought this could not happen one day, I wouldn't waste my breath for them. Even less my sweat or blood.

Deosn't matter if you belive in a soul or not.
Repalce "soul" with virtues/morals.
Either way, something that is more important to you than your life.


And you are now basicly making a judgment call on the worth of an entire species. Men, women, children. They are not worthy of the gift of life, because they do not pass YOUR moral standards?
And your'e telling me that is NOT egoistical?

You're doing exactly the same thing the reapers are doing. Exactly the same thing some say TIM is doing. Deciding who lives or dies, who is worthy or not, based on your own criteira.

I'm sure you think your criteria is the only ture and just criteria around. But so does everyone else about theri criteria.

Oh, the irony....

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I see you are a sceptic. I didn't say it is happening today. But one day..

Never. You're askign for perfectio nthat will enver come. Fighting agaisnt teh universe itself.

Never will we all be vegans.
Never will there be no death and killing.

[Kaiser Shepard]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I see you are a sceptic. I didn't say it is happening today. But one day. We have come a long way from cavemen over warlords and dictators of all kinds to who we are today. It may not be perfect yet, but the improvement is clearly there. Ask any black people for example in the USA how life is today and how it was 50 or 60 years ago. Not perfect but better. Ask woman who nowadays can vote, which wasn't always so. Look at wellfare organisations. Look at rising numbers of vegetarians/vegans.

Of course you can paint it all black. But that's your decision and, frankly, your own fault. I for one prefer to think that things are getting better, even if slowly.

I fail to see how women being able to vote and a rising number of vegetarians and vegans are signs of improvements to society.

[Shepard the Leper]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I see you are a sceptic. I didn't say it is happening today. But one day. We have come a long way from cavemen over warlords and dictators of all kinds to who we are today. It may not be perfect yet, but the improvement is clearly there. Ask any black people for example in the USA how life is today and how it was 50 or 60 years ago. Not perfect but better. Ask woman who nowadays can vote, which wasn't always so. Look at wellfare organisations. Look at rising numbers of vegetarians/vegans.

Of course you can paint it all black. But that's your decision and, frankly, your own fault. I for one prefer to think that things are getting better, even if slowly.

You are talking about your own kind - in this case human beings. May I ask if you ever felt bad whenever you squashed a bug that annoyed you? I never did although I took the life of a living being. There is a big difference between harming one of your own kind and another. Even Adolf didn't deployed chemical weaponry in WWII because he considered that inhumane (he didn't mind using it on "lesser beings" in his death camps though).

The Reapers are clearly not human(oid) and definitely don't share your views about morals. Fighting them with some sort of code of honor is just plain stupid. This isn't about chivalry, it's about survival. In fact, you can consider those who died at the hands of the Collectors to be "heroes" who contributed (with their deaths) to defeat the Reapers. Or you can make their sacrifice pointless by destroying the base.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I see you are a sceptic. I didn't say it is happening today. But one day..

Never. You're askign for perfectio nthat will enver come. Fighting agaisnt teh universe itself.

Never will we all be vegans.
Never will there be no death and killing.

I'd be fine with 99% or 90.

We are not animals anymore who just follow instincts, at least some of us. Some people starved to death to make a point, even though they could have had food. But they chose not to. Doesn't mean that nature isn't 'calling' but we can resist it's urge and do something completely stupid and un-darwinistic. Like killing ourself for no good reason (or for a good reason).

I don't know where you get this negative vibe. I mean I have seen my share of BS in life and actually I have not come out of it completely yet, but I would consider it a personal defeat if I give up my ideals because of nature, or society or ... whoever. Just because life may be unfair it doesn't mean that I as an individual have to be, or we as a society. We have a choice, the choice to forge a world after our will. If we want it. If enough of us want it.

[AlexXIV]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well I see you are a sceptic. I didn't say it is happening today. But one day. We have come a long way from cavemen over warlords and dictators of all kinds to who we are today. It may not be perfect yet, but the improvement is clearly there. Ask any black people for example in the USA how life is today and how it was 50 or 60 years ago. Not perfect but better. Ask woman who nowadays can vote, which wasn't always so. Look at wellfare organisations. Look at rising numbers of vegetarians/vegans.

Of course you can paint it all black. But that's your decision and, frankly, your own fault. I for one prefer to think that things are getting better, even if slowly.

You are talking about your own kind - in this case human beings. May I ask if you ever felt bad whenever you squashed a bug that annoyed you? I never did although I took the life of a living being. There is a big difference between harming one of your own kind and another. Even Adolf didn't deployed chemical weaponry in WWII because he considered that inhumane (he didn't mind using it on "lesser beings" in his death camps though).

The Reapers are clearly not human(oid) and definitely don't share your views about morals. Fighting them with some sort of code of honor is just plain stupid. This isn't about chivalry, it's about survival. In fact, you can consider those who died at the hands of the Collectors to be "heroes" who contributed (with their deaths) to defeat the Reapers. Or you can make their sacrifice pointless by destroying the base.

I do feel bad. I also feel bad to kill spiders even though I hate them. I am still doing it, but at least I am not forgetting that it is not a good thing. Also, it is not about the fight with the reapers, it is also about the fight with ourselves, our nature. To grow beyond your nature you have to overcome it. If you follow your nature you cannot expect change. As I said, we have a mind, we have a choice. We are not animals. The only thing we 'have to' do is die one day.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 15 décembre 2011 - 03:05 .

[Ice Cold J]

One of the things TIM mentioned when Shepard asked why he was brought back was that he represented something. Although unlikely, if The Reapers are capable of feeling fear, Shepard might be the one they they fear since he killed one of them. Blowing up the base of their minions, whom are supposed to be one of the most powerful races in the galaxy, in a locaiton no one was EVER supposed to reach, might make more of a statement and be more intimidating than merely defeating The Collectors.

[AlexXIV]

Ice Cold J wrote...

One of the things TIM mentioned when Shepard asked why he was brought back was that he represented something. Although unlikely, if The Reapers are capable of feeling fear, Shepard might be the one they they fear since he killed one of them. Blowing up the base of their minions, whom are supposed to be one of the most powerful races in the galaxy, in a locaiton no one was EVER supposed to reach, might make more of a statement and be more intimidating than merely defeating The Collectors.

Well what Shepard is doing is surprising them again and again. And Shep alone has brought them to a point where their return may be threatened. Maybe for the first time in millions of years. I suppose they had set backs before, but this time it will be a close call for them. And I suspect they can feel it. Because who if not them know their chances, of success and fail.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 15 décembre 2011 - 03:09 .