1667 réponses à ce sujet

[Shepard the Leper]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

LOL, that's impossible and, if it wasn't, undesirable.

Whenever a sane (hetero sexual) human male spots a beautiful female, his brain is telling him she would be a great object to reproduce and have (his) babies. Obviously we don't assault and rape her to satisfy our instincts, but the feeling will be there and that's a good thing because if humans were able to suppress those feelings and overcome them, you and me wouldn't be here.

We (humans) are no different than other species; except that we have the ability to look back at what we have done and feel good or bad about it. There actually is evidence that hints towards the possibility that humans don't have a will of their own and that everything you and I are doing has already been decided inside our brain (without us knowing about it). We only execute those commands "thinking" we did it out of our own "free" will. 

Furthermore, morals are not universal. What you consider to be the "right" thing to do might very well be the "worst" thing one can do with a different perspective. People who talk about morals being something universal are both arrogant and ignorant. And there isn't room for morals in war anyway - whenever you think about the possiblity that the person who's coming to kill you might have a family of his own and that they will feel bad about you killing him, will get you killed - that's not the advisable thing to do if you value your own life.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@Luc0s, Why should you suppress your feeling? We already know that you have categorised yourself as an animal (Praising Freud-Darwin at its best) who have no will.

Thanks to your previous posts I know how to deal with Animals who look like human.

I believe in God (Not a Abrahimic or Paganic form), the creator and preserver of Universe and that our Intelligence is from the substance of God. No creature on Earth can reach the intelligence of Humankind for ever ...

Modifié par Jedi Sentinel Arian, 15 décembre 2011 - 04:34 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
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'd consider death of an entire species un-darwinistic....

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.

To have ideals is one thing.
To sacrifice everyone and everything for them is another.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Luc0s wrote...

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

No, not every choice in the universe is equal. Only this choice about the Collector Base is.

I'm not vague. I'm just writing it down the way it is. The reason why I'm "vague" is because the choice itself is vague. We don't have any speficic information and so destroying the base is as good as a guess as keeping the base is. It's just a big GAMBLE. It's a big GUESS.

To say otherwise is simply deluding yourself.

no, you are the one deluding yourself.

To say the choice is equal is absurd. They couldn't be more different.
Yet you insist they are the same, and wihotu anything at all to back that up.

[Labrev]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
What I'm saying is, it's not worth it to try to solve the problem by creating a new one that's even close to the same level a threat. You're replacing slavery with slavery all over again. It's not worth fighting for survival, if the new scenario brings about a threat that can kill you just as easily. You fight for freedom from the threat completely.[/quote]

Except it's not even close to the same level of threat.
Except it's not Cerberus slavery. Except it can't really happen.[/quote]

[quote][quote]You're downplaying what they were (to downplay the potential threat Cerberus would pose in their place). They were literally carrying out harvesting on behalf of the Reapers.

The Collectors didn't fight because they didn't have to, the swarms did the work for them. As it were though, they were armed and well-enough prepared to handle combat, even if there was a disparity between how advanced they were and how easy they were to defeat in the game (writer fail).[/quote]

I'm not downplaying anything. One base, a few thousand troops and a single ship.
The Collectors coudl only get away wiht what tehy were doing because of how, where and when they did it.[/quote]


That one base goes to Cerberus now, and I'm sure Cerberus easily has plenty ships of their own and as many personnel as the Collectors did (and who's to say they don't expand, I'm sure many more will want to join a winning army). So again, we can rather safely conclude that Cerberus can become the same threat that the Collectors once were.

And personally, I'm inclined to think they would pose a more dangerous one. Collectors were advanced but not the most intelligent of enemies (Mordin backs this: mental degradation over cloned generations, little more than husks).

Anyway, as far as downplaying goes, I just got done with an Arrival playthrough pre-Suicide Mission and asked Hackett about the Collector attacks. According to him, the Alliance evactuated colonies in response to the attacks. But where encountered, the Collectors took out all Alliance ships with a 100% success rate. And again, they took out the Normandy once too - supposedly the Alliance's most advanced stealth ship, with supposedly their very best pilot at the helm.

True, they did not actually engage in open war. As you said, they didn't need to. Open war was not their goal anyway - serving to create the new Reaper was ultimately their true purpose. But you don't think they'd be lethal if they did try to wage war? They'd obviously need to expand past the one ship (again, the purpose for which was their colony-abductions first and foremost) and manpower, but what little they had wreaked havoc where they went.

And again, we're talking about a post-Reaper galaxy where this would take place, not likely one with overwhelming numbers left to arm up and successfully take out another threat on par with the Collectors.

So again it comes back to the initial point I've been making all along: in the wake of the old threat, a new one of the same caliber is ultimately made. Survival comes with the price of living in fear of it, and freedom from it likely comes with the sacrifice of many to remove it, probably in vain before it happens - if it happens at all.

Say another small army sets out to conquer them in a mission to take out the major Cerberus base-of-operations, should they hand that base to an egomaniac with unchecked power again? They might need those resources and weapons to successfully wipe them out for good.


[quote][quote]No, it's not rocket science. You win a battle, you acquire crap. Like, the Collector Base itself from the O4-mission.[/quote]

Aaaand I see you really do not understand....[/quote]

This is not real life as we know it, this is a simulation in space where other species, civilizations, and technology are inolved - among many other unknowns and variables. If you're expecting it to play out in a completely wordly scenario, I think the results will clash with your expectations.

That's not to say that real world and historical examples do not exist behind such a pheomena either.


[quote][quote]The claims you are making here are based on impression, not actual knowledge of the enemy past the basic stuff we know. I'm not claiming to know that we have a chance, I'm just not acting like I know enough to deciedly say one way or the other.[/quote]

No, they are based on actual knowledge...[/quote]

[quote][quote]When's the last time they invaded w/o the Citadel surprise-attack? When's the last time they had to enter the galaxy from dark space and face likely all living species fighting against them?[/quote]

I dont' know. I don't have to know to know their overwhelming tactical and strategic superiority.
They don't need a surprise attack (and apprently thy stil lcaught everyone by surprise)[/quote]

Their superiority is not lost on anyone. To use that alone to decidedly conclude whether or not we can win or lose is the issue we're having here.

[quote]Yes it is. You can't prove anything with ANY certanty.
I can. Probablity is on my side on this one.[/quote]

I cannot but neither can you. High probability =/= Certainty.

[quote][quote]So what's your plan if the base renders nothing?[/quote]

The same as yours - they to do as muhc as I can with the resources I can, as futile as it is.
If I fail, I'm in the same boat as you. If I suceed, I may survive.
For you - you remain in the same sinking boat regardless.[/quote]

We've yet to establish that all is futile without the base. As probable as it may seem, it's supposition all the same. Not certainty.

[quote][quote]As for the stuff I cut, frankly, yes. We need a lot of luck, and need to be resourceful enough to capitalize on it if we hope to pull it off. Would you not agree?[/quote]

Tons and tons of luck. Time. And everything else.

Your hopes aren't based on anything concrete and have a billion points of possible faliure. For your "plan" to work EVERYTHING - and I mean EVERYTHING - must roll in your favor.[/quote]

And that is kind of the point here. If nothing goes your way in the war anyway, victory was never in the cards to start out with. And the monumental potential downsides involved with giving Cerberus the base don't balance out with the highly unlikely scenario that it alone would save us from the Reapers either. Whatever good it does in the short-term would be dubious in the long-term given its new owner, and that's just assuming they don't royally screw things up again and bring about armaggaedon on their own. I risked basically nothing.

Risk is in the eyes of the beholder. You see risk of losing without it (FWIW I do too somewhat), I see risk of losing by shooting ourselves in the foot - in more ways than one - by entrusting it to Cerberus

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 15 décembre 2011 - 04:51 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Luc0s wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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......

That's the most stupid analogy ever, especially because I don't believe in a God, because God most likely doesn't even exist.

If I had evidence that God exists and would be capable AND willing to save me, your analogy would be correct. But since God most likely doesn't exist and wouldn't save me, your analogy completely fails.

You trollin me now?
Analogy works wether you believe or dont'. I never even asked if you belived in God. It is irrelevant.
I believe in God, and jumping without parachute is sheer stupidity.

The very fact that you're even arguing it in this way jsut goes to show you how far over your head this whole thing is.

I would put faith in a parachute over putting faith in an imaginary deity - every - single - time. I know the parachute exists and I know it's succes-rate. The same can't be said about God or any other deity.

and I know the base exists and the sucess rate we had with reaper tech. teh same can't be said about some unexisting deus ex machina that might appear.

So yeh, completely stupid and moronic failure analogy. And you actually dare to laugh at me? HAHAHA!  Don't make me laugh.

Yeah, I laugh at you. I find clowns funny.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 décembre 2011 - 04:52 .

[ForteSJGR]

Luc0s wrote...
.....but I wouldn't be surprised if this decision is totally going to backfire on me, We'll see.

I suppose it's to much to hope for a really awesome coffee maker that TIM will develop. 

Modifié par ForteSJGR, 15 décembre 2011 - 05:08 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
That one base goes to Cerberus now, and I'm sure Cerberus easily has plenty ships of their own and as many personnel as the Collectors did (and who's to say they don't expand, I'm sure many more will want to join a winning army). So again, we can rather safely conclude that Cerberus can become the same threat that the Collectors once were.[/quote]

Which is a nusiance, nothing more.


[quote]
And personally, I'm inclined to think they would pose a more dangerous one. Collectors were advanced but not the most intelligent of enemies (Mordin backs this: mental degradation over cloned generations, little more than husks).[/quote]

Sicne Collectors were controlled by Harbringer and he is intelligent..not very relevant.


[quote]
Anyway, as far as downplaying goes, I just got done with an Arrival playthrough pre-Suicide Mission and asked Hackett about the Collector attacks. According to him, the Alliance evactuated colonies in response to the attacks. But where encountered, the Collectors took out all Alliance ships with a 100% success rate. And again, they took out the Normandy once too - supposedly the Alliance's most advanced stealth ship, with supposedly their very best pilot at the helm.[/quote]

And a frigate. A ship never meant for heavy fighting.

Oh noes, a 2km long ship took out our 100 meter long scouting/infiltration vessel! We are doomed!

Patrols are frigates. Collectors have a nasty forward gun. So yeah, not surprising that a minimal force would get defeated.


[quote]
But you don't think they'd be lethal if they did try to wage war? They'd obviously need to expand past the one ship (again, the purpose for which was their colony-abductions first and foremost) and manpower, but what little they had wreaked havoc where they went.[/quote]

Only because of very specific conditions.


[quote]
And again, we're talking about a post-Reaper galaxy where this would take place, not likely one with overwhelming numbers left to arm up and successfully take out another threat on par with the Collectors.[/quote]

Again, assumign Cerberus itself took no damage, and assumgin everyoen else lost their whole fleets and learned nothing in the process.

[quote]
So again it comes back to the initial point I've been making all along: in the wake of the old threat, a new one of the same caliber is ultimately made. Survival comes with the price of living in fear of it, and freedom from it likely comes with the sacrifice of many to remove it, probably in vain before it happens - if it happens at all.[/quote]

The point you tried to make, but failed every time.
The new threat is not of hte smae caliber. Never was. Never will be.




[quote]
This is not real life as we know it, this is a simulation in space where other species, civilizations, and technology are inolved - among many other unknowns and variables. If you're expecting it to play out in a completely wordly scenario, I think the results will clash with your expectations.[/quote]

Thank you for proving my poitn. When your defense consists of "it's a game" or "that's game mechanics" than it means you got nothing.
The realities of how real armies operate and what is required for them to function don't dissaper just becasue you want them to.



[quote][quote]
I dont' know. I don't have to know to know their overwhelming tactical and strategic superiority.
They don't need a surprise attack (and apprently thy stil lcaught everyone by surprise)[/quote]

Their superiority is not lost on anyone. To use that alone to decidedly conclude whether or not we can win or lose is the issue we're having here.[/quote]

Have all the issues you want. I dont' give a damn.
Numbers, technolgoy and strategic considerrations IS how you judge war and make predictions and comparisons.

What else you want me to bring in? character shields? Deus Ex machinas?

The reaper technological superiority is OBSCENE.
It's like the modern US military stormin and indian village.



[quote]
[quote]Yes it is. You can't prove anything with ANY certanty.
I can. Probablity is on my side on this one.[/quote]

I cannot but neither can you. High probability =/= Certainty.[/quote]

So 1% and 99% probablilties are equally valid when making decisions?
With every post your argumets get weaker and weaker.

Also, I can prove some things with certanty.






[quote][quote]
The same as yours - they to do as muhc as I can with the resources I can, as futile as it is.
If I fail, I'm in the same boat as you. If I suceed, I may survive.
For you - you remain in the same sinking boat regardless.[/quote]

We've yet to establish that all is futile without the base. As probable as it may seem, it's supposition all the same. Not certainty.[/quote]

Ahh yes... you have "dismissed" that claim, havn't you? Like the council, you choose to disbelief reality when it doesnt' suit you.



[quote][quote]
Tons and tons of luck. Time. And everything else.

Your hopes aren't based on anything concrete and have a billion points of possible faliure. For your "plan" to work EVERYTHING - and I mean EVERYTHING - must roll in your favor.[/quote]

And that is kind of the point here. If nothing goes your way in the war anyway, victory was never in the cards to start out with. And the monumental potential downsides involved with giving Cerberus the base don't balance out with the highly unlikely scenario that it alone would save us from the Reapers either. Whatever good it does in the short-term would be dubious in the long-term given its new owner, and that's just assuming they don't royally screw things up again and bring about armaggaedon on their own. I risked basically nothing.[/quote]


What? You're not making any sense...at all.

Do you see the difference here? I bolded it for you.
You're jsut basicly saying "if things don't go like I planed, victory was never in the cards". You can say that for ANY plan, no matter how redicolous.


You risked everything. You plan is attrocious and relies on so much "lucky rolls" that even the most compulsive gamblers would go "f*** this".


Your "plan" (or lack of one) can fail in a milion ways. Mine can only fail in a few.
And then you call my plan a gamble!

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Patrols are frigates. Collectors have a nasty forward gun. So yeah, not surprising that a minimal force would get defeated.

"Cruisers are the standard patrol unit, and often lead frigate flotillas."

[Lotion Soronarr]

Luc0s wrote...
Your analogy completely fails BECAUSE the choice in your analogy is so damn obvious. Why in the world would anyone jump without a parachute? Is there ANY reason to do something like that? NO!

The base choice is also damn obvious.
Of course, one must have a minimal capacity for processing rational thought to see that.

Yes, the base exists. But how do you know the base will give us any succes in the hands of TIM?

The only succes with reaper tech so far was the Thanix cannon made by the Turians. TIM so far always completely failed with reaper-tech. Besides, we don't know TIM's motives and we don't know how dangerous this base could be.

Why wouldn't it?
TIM gets results. There may be collateral damage, but he does get results.
Alsp, TIM didn't fail with reaper tech every time. Both the IFF and EDI ended up a sucess.

Every single instance of anyone researching reaper tech ended with a net gain for us (protheans and the Citadel, Arrival, IFF, EDI, Thanix). EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
Without exception..

Yes, the base COULD aid us, like the Thanix cannon. But it could also back-fire on us, like Object Rho. Also, if we look at the rate of failure from Cerberus with Reaper tech, I say it's fair to doubt Cerberus can handle the base.

Without Object Rho we would have never delayed the reapers. You are proven wrong with everything.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 décembre 2011 - 05:34 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Patrols are frigates. Collectors have a nasty forward gun. So yeah, not surprising that a minimal force would get defeated.

"Cruisers are the standard patrol unit, and often lead frigate flotillas."

Standard in core space maybe. These were the fringes, where heavy military presence was avoided.
You know all that tension because of 1 frigate got too close to the Terminus borders?

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Standard in core space maybe. These were the fringes, where heavy military presence was avoided.
You know all that tension because of 1 frigate got too close to the Terminus borders?

And evacuating entire colonies doesn't require more than one frigate?

[Lotion Soronarr]

You don't evacuate colonies in military ships. There are troop transports and liners for that.

Also, the Collectors wouldn't hit a large military force. If one such was assembled and evacuating a colony, the collectors would skip that one.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 décembre 2011 - 05:55 .

[Someone With Mass]

Right, because there are no risks of pirate attacks or anything.