1667 réponses à ce sujet

[Subferro]

Saphra Deden wrote...


Alright then, I'll make a better analogy (no offense to Lotion).

You are jumping out of a plane. You can take a parachute from a sometimes irreputable manufacturer or you can just free fall. According to you, it would be better to just free fall because the parachute might open wrong and strangle you, or it might lead you into powerlines, or anything else you can imagine. So you'll free fall and just hope that you survive anyway.

I know it's a few pages old and we've moved on, but this is a good analogy to work with, so I thought I would make sure Saphra realizes that this still misses the point.

You and your insane partner are in a crashing plane. There's one parachute that may or may not work. You can either give it to your partner, or throw it out of the plane. If you give it to your partner, you still have to try and find a way down for yourself. Assuming you find nothing else of use in the plane, you're hoping the chute might open, and the other passenger might grab you on the way down and soften your fall. Of course he will also will probably kill you and  your family assuming you both safely land. 

The other option is to throw the 'chute out of the plane.  The other passenger frantically jumps after it, meanwhile, you have a chance to frantically scavange the plane for anything else that might save you (see: Indiana Jones). You also face the possibility that the other passenger managed to catch the falling parachute and get it to work, in which case he'll still try to kill you and your family, but you won't be at his mercy like you would be had he caught you as you both fell.

When you actually examine the choices, instead of grossly over-simplifying them (durr, destroying the base is like jumping without a parachute), they're not as far apart as you claim.

Modifié par Subferro, 15 décembre 2011 - 09:18 .

[111987]

Luc0s wrote...

111987 wrote...

Did you miss the part where I said the DA has more than just one gun?

Did you miss the part where I said the DA most likely DOESN'T have more than one gun? Else it would have used it's other guns against the geth. It didn't.

111987 wrote...

Just because they weren't shown doesn't mean they weren't there. I know that sounds stupid.

Yes, that sounds totally stupid indeed.

Like I said in my post, which you ignored, is that a lot of things were not shown in that battle that should have been. Think about it logically; would the Asari really only build a ship with one gun? 

Which we don't even see. Does that mean it's not there?

111987 wrote...

And yet a couple of geth ships where able to break through that barrier. Even when the DA is saved, it's barriers are still serverly crippled which would make it easy for Sov to finish the job with just one shot.

Maybe if the barriers of the DA are at full charge, it could take a couple of hits from Sovvy, but in that very battle, the barriers where almost entirely stripped by the geth. So in that battle, the DA was useless.

Kinetic barriers recharge.

Luc0s wrote...

I haven't seen that, but if that's true than ME3's demo is super stupid and totally lore-breaking. The Codex itself says that a dreadnought is useless in close-combat and it's only used for long-distance artillery.

Agreed. But the DA could have pulled back and fired upon Sovereign from a distance.

Anyways this debate doesn't really interest me, so I'm off.

[Subferro]

Like I said, it's not as straighforward a decision as some would like to believe.

Modifié par Subferro, 15 décembre 2011 - 09:32 .

[HiroVoid]

Subferro wrote...

Like I said, it's not as straighforward a decision as some would like to believe.

People can role-play and come up with any reason they want to make their decison.  I'm a fan of role-playing in role-playing games which is why I hate how they make Shepard say certain reasons at the end of ME2.  The choice itself is presented very simply and follows what it presents to you though.

[AlexXIV]

Well yeah, the 'sacrifice the soul of our species' is really bad. Our species does have a soul, like a hive soul, and we are ... what ... sacrificing/saving it? Lay off the booze Shepard, we need you sobered up. The hard thing about picking paragon choices is mostly the cheesy lines Shepard comes up with.

[Subferro]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

I think Subferro's analogy is better than Saphra's, and WAY better than that religious crap that other guy used for an analogy.

His analogy is a rambilng, overly-complex pile of donkey dung.

The fact that he has to go into such detail to try and explain it is proof of enough of how ridiculous it is. The simpler the analogy, the better. A good argument doesn't need a complex analogy like that.

Crazy partner? He's gonna kill my family? What?

Did you miss the part where I said you were oversimplifying the choice? That was the whole point of my post...

It's complex because the decision is complex.

Modifié par Subferro, 15 décembre 2011 - 10:29 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Honestly I don't particularly care at this point.

I enjoy the characters of ME and their individual stories more than the main plot anyway.

And unlike Saphra and his..."unique" cohorts I can enjoy a game and meta-game at the same time.

I know that's heresy to Saphra's types but who cares what they think anyway?



Edit: I saw this and thought of you Saphra/Kaiser/Lotion. http://tvtropes.org/...hp/Main/FanDumb

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 15 décembre 2011 - 10:37 .

[Medhia Nox]

Concerning the DA - if what characters say is to be taken as "truth" in the ME universe - Ashley says right at the beginning of ME 1: "Look at the size of that thing. It's main gun could destroy any ship in the Alliance fleet."

Make it a Thanix weapon and it might be helpful.

And that also implies it has more than one gun.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 15 décembre 2011 - 10:51 .

[Ice Cold J]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

I like this poster. He understands.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well yeah, the 'sacrifice the soul of our species' is really bad. Our species does have a soul, like a hive soul, and we are ... what ... sacrificing/saving it? Lay off the booze Shepard, we need you sobered up. The hard thing about picking paragon choices is mostly the cheesy lines Shepard comes up with.

You can give the whole "Soul of our Species" line even if you keep the base.  I kept it and used that same line in a warning to TIM not to do anything stupid... which seems to have gone unheeded....


TIM's gonna pay...

[Ryzaki]

That's the only thing I hate about destroying the base.

That line made me wanna bash my head against the wall.

That's one of the dumbest things I ever heard him say and considering he compared the genophage to the first contact war that's saying something.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 décembre 2011 - 12:28 .

[Heimdall]

A more apt analogy for this situation.

You are in a crashing plane. You have a backpack that has a slight chance of holding a parachute. It has an equal chance of being a bomb. If you jump it is possible, but not definite, that you will survive at this altitude without a parachute. So you have to make the choice. Pull the chute and gamble for safety or destruction, or don't and operate only with known quantities.

The analogy is highly exaggerated of course. The likelihood of Cerberus turning up valuable results in the matter of weeks before the Reapers arrive or they succumb to indoctrination that have a greater impact than the war than what took the Turians two years to glean from Sovereign's remains is rather small. The base would also be a large bother for Shepard and the rest since it represents an enemy base to launch attacks from that only Shepard himself can personally retaliate against. However, the threat would still be manageable compared to the Reapers. In the end, the likelihood of the base having a great impact on the war, positive or negative, was never very high.

So instead of a parachute, make that a large inflatable cushion. Instead of a bomb, make that a non-lethal but very painful electric shock.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Without Cerberus, there'd be no Shepard and the Collectors would not be stopped...  Wild cards for sure, but they were invaluable in ME2...
Coming off a successful suicide mission, Cerberus has proven themselves to be the Riddick of Mass Effect.  Can never fully trust them, but they've also proven to be one of Shepard's best allies during a time when no one else stood up.

@Lord Aesir
Finding data is faster and easier than making tech from it... that's the key thing.  Putting an explosive pulse in the base before evacuating would also be easy to do if the Reapers arrived (far easier than it was to do that on the suicide mission). 

Here's the kicker though... what is your alternative to studying the base?  "We'll find a way" is not a very responsible answer when the entire galaxy's at stake (not to mention that you were willing to work with Cerberus for far less... only Earth).  I'd just keep a close eye on Cerberus (because I know what they're like) and study the darn base. 

Far less of a risk than saying "We'll fight the unbeaten galaxy killers... but we have nothing to go on and no ideas whatsoever..."

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 16 décembre 2011 - 03:26 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Here's the exact phrasing:

Shells lofted by surface navies crash back to earth when their acceleration is overwhelmed by gravity and air resistance. In space, a projectile has unlimited range, it will keep moving until it hits something.
Practical gunnery range is determined by the velocity of the attacker's ordinance and the maneuverability of the target. Beyond a certain range, a small ship's ability to dodge trumps a larger attacker's projectile speed. The largest-ranged combat occurs between dreadnoughts, whose projectiles have the highest velocity but are the least maneuverable. The shortest-range combat is between frigates, which have the slowest projectile velocities and highest maneuverability.
Opposing dreadnoughts open with main gun artillery duel at EXTREME ranges of tens of thousands of kilometers. The fleet close, maintaining evasive lateral motion while keeping their bow guns facing the enemy. Fighters are launched and attempt to close to disruptor torpedo range. Cautious admirals weaken the enemy with ranged fire and fighter strikes before committing to close action. Aggressive commanders advance so cruisers and frigates can engage.
At LONG range, the main guns of cruisers become useful. Friendly interceptors engage enemy fighters until the attackers enter the range of ship-based GARDIAN fire. Dreadnoughts fire from the rear, screened by smaller ships. Commanders must decide whether to commit to a general melee or retreat into FTL.
At MEDIUM range, ships can use broadside guns. Fleets intermingle, and it becomes difficult to retreat in order. Ships with damaged kinetic barriers are vulnerable to wolfpack1 frigate flotillas that speed through the battle space.
Only fighters and frigates enter CLOSE "knife fight" ranges of 10 or fewer kilometers. Fighters loose their disruptor torpedoes, bringing down a ship's kinetic barriers and allowing it to be swarmed by frigates. GARDIAN lasers become viable weapons, swatting down fighters and boiling away warship armor.
Neither dreadnoughts nor cruisers can use their main guns at close range; laying the bow on a moving target becomes impossible. Superheated thruster exhaust becomes a hazard.

Note that it never says that dreadnaughts are useless at close range.  It says that their main guns are useless at close range. 

One wonders how many secondary guns a ship the size of the DA could mount. 

One also wonders if it was really "a couple of Geth ships" that dropped the DA's barriers, or actually the massed firepower of many Geth ships, or multiple hits from Sovereign that occur while the camera's eye is elsewhere -- we only see brief scenes once the battle has started, while many minutes go buy inside the Citadel as Shep talks Saren into blowing his brains out...

[Heimdall]

@Mr.Gogeta34

No, not at all. Consider that every signifigant piece of Reaper technology so far encountered has been capable of indoctrinating those nearby, most notably object Rho. It stands to reason that the Collector base has the same capability. You can't set an explosive charge because the entire staff will be indoctrinated long before the Reapers get there. So they have a scant few weeks before reports become unreliable and then stop entirely. If mere data collection was all that was required than the staff on the Derelict Reaper, given that it was an actual Reaper, should have yield
ed at least the same level of results as what some here are proposing the Collector base can give.

The alternative is not gambling for minimal gains with the very real possibility that you've just set up a base from which the Reapers' indoctrinated servants can launch attacks with impunity. Shepard is the only one with a ship outside Cerberus that would be able to stop them, dragging him and the Normandy away from the front lines in their time of greatest need. With only the Cerberus soldiers and scientists it could be resolved relatively quickly, but if the Reapers managed to reinforce them it could become a serious problem.

That's the risk. All I stand to lose from destroying the base is a minuscule chance that it will lead to useful advantage. An advantage whose effectiveness will be quite limited by Cerberus' tendency to resist sharing such technology, especially to the backbone of Shepard's allies, the alien species. I stand to gain the assurance that the base cannot be used against us and that the forces of the Galaxy will be able to remain focused in their battle. No other species has fought the Reapers like this before. All the rest had their political nervous system beheaded in the first move and then had the mass relay network restricted. It's a new gameboard, it is illogical to assume we will go the way of the previous species with such a difference in circumstances.

[GodWood]

Lord Aesir wrote...
I stand to gain the assurance that the base cannot be used against us and that the forces of the Galaxy will be able to remain focused in their battle.

Instead of studying collector tech to arm this galaxy you are hoping they'll fend them off despite being technologically inferior, ununited and completely unaware of the Reapers. The only current weapon the galaxy has got that would be effective against the Reapers is the thanix cannons and they were made from Reaper tech. 

No other species has fought the Reapers like this before. All the rest had their political nervous system beheaded in the first move and then had the mass relay network restricted.

This is simply untrue. We only know of how the Protheans were destroyed.

Everyone who destroys the base is throwing away a chance at victory with the hope that another one might appear. It's ridiculous.

Modifié par GodWood, 16 décembre 2011 - 07:17 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
I am not sacrificing everyone and everything for my ideals.

" 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."

You're making a judgment over entire species based on your flimy morals and silly reasoning.
You think instincs are bad and we must "grow" over anything even remotely related to them. Instincts re usefull. If there weren't we wouldn't have them.

You probably think it is 'meta-gaming' that I make decisions based on knowing how Bioware write stories/games. I see it more as adapting. I don't like it any more than you, but if I know that in a 'game-world' being idealistic pays off, then I am idealistic in this game-world. For once because I would be in real life too if I knew it works, and also because I don't think it makes sense to lead a rebellion against the writers. The writers always win. It's like rebelling against god.

No, I don't thikn it's meta-gaming. I know it's meta-gaming.
Argument null and void, as it is out-of-universe justification for a decision.