529 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

You don't see the big picture.

Replace luck with miracle. Because if you have that much luck that is basically impossible, then people tend to view it as a miracle. And who works miracles? Right, the Lord our god. So he didn't mind aliens being wiped out because he is a human god. Then the Reapers would threaten to wipe out his beloved humans and he could not let it happen. So he first 'helped' the Protheans and then He made Shepard his shepherd for His People. And ever since god helped Shepard out on the road. Which also explains why the Paragon way works so well. God loves Paragons. See how all things suddenly make sense?

Seriously, if you think it is luck which brought us to far, then it will be luck that will let us succeed in the end. But I guess it is ok because you make up your own reality anyway as you go. I mean that's basically how you build your own ME story in your head. You tell yourself everything Cerberus does is due to skill because they get results and it has nothing to do with luck, and everyone else is just being lucky. The more I see from this discussions the less I can take them seriously really people. It is all about entitlement and going any length to defend it.

And in the end what? In the end you will just have to accept what Bioware serves you, or doesn't. And it will be just the same that you got so far.

First: I don't believe in God. God doesn't exist. So I don't rely on a non-existing god and neither does (my) Shepard.

Second: It would be totally insane and stupid to rely on a miracle. In the past achieved succes is no guarantee for the future. Just because Shepard was extremely lucky so far does not mean his tactic should rely on that luck factor. Only passive fools hope and pray for a miracle. Smart men, men of action, men like Shepard, take matters into own hands and try to create their own luck.

Finally: What Cerberus/TIM does, is exactly that: he tries to create their own luck. Whether luck plays a role in his succes or not doesn't matter, the fact that TIM is the only one trying to do something about the reapers is what matters.
You can't expect to defeat the reapers by doing nothing, you can't expect the solution to the reapers to be thrown in your lap by doing nothing, or worse, by doing something counter-productive (such as blowing up the Collector base, which is Shepard's only lead on the reapers).


The more I see you posting, the more I see you're desperate and you're desperately trying to come up with arguments that are just plain silly to say the least. The more I see you posting, the less I can take you seriously.

Your mistake is to take everything serious, as is Lotion's. Do you think I believe in this god talk? I was still poking fun at the 'it's all luck' position that you guys. If anything this a poor idea about how the things happened. I used to the god example to show that even that makes more sense than your 'it's all about luck'.

[Lotion Soronarr]

didymos1120 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Also, as I said beofore - ships engaged cannot just break out of comabt at will.

If they've got FTL capability, that's exactly what they can do.

FTL is for crossing vast interstellar distacnes. Millions, billions of kilometers. Not for moving a few hunderd/thousand kilometers.

And neither can one just go FTL like that (without a pre-calculated vector) So it still requires a few seconds and turning.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

How many times have you said that now? You could at least get more orignial than repeating yourself again and again. Seriously, of all people on the BSN there is only one making more a fool of himself then anyone else. And that's you. Of course you don't see that. But ... what can I say, someone who doesn't know the difference between game and reality sees alot of things different I guess.

So because I argue the validity of decision from a in-universe perspective (which is really the only sensible perspective to argue such big character choices) you deduce I cannot destinguish between game and reality?
:lol::lol::lol:


You know, when you turn to the "it's just a game", "it will be as the devs decide" and similar statements, it only shows how weak your position actually is.
You have to resort to going outside of the game/universe/fluff to try to (unsucesfully) justify your theories.

Mayhaps one day you'll learn the destinction between a good and bad argument. I'm not keeping my hopes up tough.

Because it is a fact that the writers write the story. And they have their reasons. You discuss this game on real world terms which just don't apply. You put more thought into it than any dev ever did. Because they were making an action game/RPG not a future space simulation. If I just see how you interpret space battles I already facepalm. One time you say they can't do this because they are too far away, because they cannot move, they cannot turn, they cannot fire, then someone posts a screenshot of how close they are and you go on about how you can't take this as an evidence because the devs made it this way for dramatury etc. You discredit your own attempts to get a picture of the situation by claiming stuff like that.
 
You have your own picture of things that happened and then you try to argue for them. Just like you make purely emotional decissions and then try to find a rationale/reason for this and argue for the hell of it. Alot of people disagree and you go on pretending they don't know what they are talking about whatever. You have no clue about space battles in the 22nd century, you have no clue about the battle at the citadel and you have no clue about the ships and their capability. Neither are you an admiral or whatever it takes to judge the situation. You're just as incompetent as everyone else in this regard, just with the difference that everyone else knows it. Just not you obviously. If I thought you had half a brain I'd say you're the best troll on the BSN. But I don't think you do have half a brain tbh.

I can distinct between a good and a bad argument. Just that yours are all bad.

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Your mistake is to take everything serious, as is Lotion's. Do you think I believe in this god talk? I was still poking fun at the 'it's all luck' position that you guys. If anything this a poor idea about how the things happened. I used to the god example to show that even that makes more sense than your 'it's all about luck'.

Your mistake is to not making any sense and using incredibly weak arguments, only to say "I wasn't serious" in the end. Yeah right. Your argument failed badly so you simply say "I wasn't serious". Weak....


I believe Dean already explained this about luck and how it works quite nicely on the previous page, so I don't need to repeat it. Just go back to page 16 and read Dean's post again.


Do you now understand that luck indeed is the biggest factor that allowed Shepard's victory? Yes? Good. No? Then go read Dean's post once more until you finally understand it.


Does that mean Shepard should actively rely on his luck when making his decisions? No! Of course not! Only a fool would actively rely on his luck! Luck is unpredictable and something you can't rely on.

That's why the Protheans didn't rely on their luck. That's why Shepard doesn't. You only say it is luck because you don't understand it. Or do you even know what exactly happened at the Reaper attack on the Protheans? Or why they didn't find Ilos? No, you know nothing and that's why you say it was luck. You replace lack of knowledge with the term luck like religious people replace it with god.

I am agnostic if you know what that means. I don't believe in god and I said that many times over. That you fell for it just shows you are not good at spotting sarcasm, and you don't know a thing about me. You're just a kid trying to be cool on the internet. And you fail at it. But you know my opinon of people like you already. I told you after all.

Edit: You took me serious when I said that god is a human god and didn't mind the Reapers wiping the galaxy unless they wiped the humans? How can any half smart person take that serious? God is a human god lol. And who is the Alien god then? Come on. Man.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 28 décembre 2011 - 12:07 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So because I argue the validity of decision from a in-universe perspective (which is really the only sensible perspective to argue such big character choices) you deduce I cannot destinguish between game and reality?
:lol::lol::lol:


You know, when you turn to the "it's just a game", "it will be as the devs decide" and similar statements, it only shows how weak your position actually is.
You have to resort to going outside of the game/universe/fluff to try to (unsucesfully) justify your theories.

Mayhaps one day you'll learn the destinction between a good and bad argument. I'm not keeping my hopes up tough.

Because it is a fact that the writers write the story. And they have their reasons. You discuss this game on real world terms which just don't apply.

It does apply because the game universe is real as far as that universe in concerned.

You put more thought into it than any dev ever did. Because they were making an action game/RPG not a future space simulation. If I just see how you interpret space battles I already facepalm. One time you say they can't do this because they are too far away, because they cannot move, they cannot turn, they cannot fire, then someone posts a screenshot of how close they are and you go on about how you can't take this as an evidence because the devs made it this way for dramatury etc. You discredit your own attempts to get a picture of the situation by claiming stuff like that.

If codex and cutscene clash, which one is correct? It's not my fault the devs can't keep it consistent.
Like it or no there is such a thing as universe fluff/canon. Every fictional universe ever created has some internal rules that govern it. Most have most of the normals rules of our uiniverse (and it is implies to be like that unless stated otehrwise).
IF you aren't capable of understanding that simpel concept, then I can't help you.

So facepalm all you want, that's the only thing you're good at.

You have your own picture of things that happened and then you try to argue for them. Just like you make purely emotional decissions and then try to find a rationale/reason for this and argue for the hell of it. Alot of people disagree and you go on pretending they don't know what they are talking about whatever. You have no clue about space battles in the 22nd century, you have no clue about the battle at the citadel and you have no clue about the ships and their capability. Neither are you an admiral or whatever it takes to judge the situation. You're just as incompetent as everyone else in this regard, just with the difference that everyone else knows it. Just not you obviously. If I thought you had half a brain I'd say you're the best troll on the BSN. But I don't think you do have half a brain tbh.

I could have 1/1000th of a brain and it would still be more than you ever will have.

I'd like you to point out the "purely emotional decisions" I supposedly made.

And yes, we do have a clue about battles in 22nd century because the codex and the game tell us about them.
We know newtonian physics works. We know there is no friction. We know mass effect  fields are used. We know the ship classes and weapon ranges involved.

So you do have some solid ground to build upon. Or should I say - you could build upon if you had that solid ground. Which you don't.
Your theories and arguments are built upon ignorance, dellusion and rampant bias, so they fall apart. You yourself are to blame.

I can distinct between a good and a bad argument. Just that yours are all bad.

At least you identify them as argumetns. I can't even call what you write that.

[Yezdigerd]

That's about as close as the geth fleet was to the Citadel. Are you honestly trying to make me believe that not a single one of those ships could have disengaged from the battle to assist Sovereign?[/quote]


[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
1. Cutscens an scale. Scale has to be ignored for dramatic tension. It's practilcy always done. That there isn't even knife-figght range..it's hull-kissing.[/quote]


It's kinda funny that you appeal to cutscenes, when they support your case and dismiss them as "dramatic tension" when they don't.


[quote]3. The Citadel arm in the background. The Geth certanly can't go or shoot trough it.[/quote]


Yeah, 30-40 kilometers are such insurmountable distances for a starship.


[quote]4. The part about exposing their rear (with the engines) to enemy fire if they do that.[/quote]

Not to be nitpicky, but if the codex is to be believed, the optimal firing solution is the ships broadside, not it's rear.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
That's why the Protheans didn't rely on their luck. That's why Shepard doesn't. You only say it is luck because you don't understand it.

Taht's the state you're very familiar with.

Or do you even know what exactly happened at the Reaper attack on the Protheans? Or why they didn't find Ilos? No, you know nothing and that's why you say it was luck. You replace lack of knowledge with the term luck like religious people replace it with god.

ERm..Vigil tells us. I believe he himself uses the term "luck" there.

Edit: You took me serious when I said that god is a human god and didn't mind the Reapers wiping the galaxy unless they wiped the humans? How can any half smart person take that serious? God is a human god lol. And who is the Alien god then? Come on. Man.

An idiot and a person pretending to be an idiot on the internet - indeed. How can we not be able to tell them apart?

Peddal harder. You're not backing up fast enough.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 28 décembre 2011 - 12:16 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yezdigerd wrote...

It's kinda funny that you appeal to cutscenes, when they support your case and dismiss them as "dramatic tension" when they don't.

What am I appealing to?
Also, note that knowing things that custscenes generally get wrong, deosn't mean they get everythign wrong.

Yeah, 30-40 kilometers are such insurmountable distances for a starship.

Not really, but it does require the ships to go around. While being fired upon. And the enemy fleet between them and their destination. And they having to expose the ENGINES to enemy fire to get there.

4. The part about exposing their rear (with the engines) to enemy fire if they do that.

Not to be nitpicky, but if the codex is to be believed, the optimal firing solution is the ships broadside, not it's rear.

The optimal fireing solution is always the bigegst cross-section.
But engiens are a big and juicy target.
And if the Geth are gonna pass by the Citadel fleet, then range won't be much of an issue.
Also, engines have a tendancy to point in the opposite direction of the main guns.

So the Geth would have the Citadel fleet hounding then and shooting their engines while they themselves can't return fire. The Suicide Mission has better odds of working.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Also, as I said beofore - ships engaged cannot just break out of comabt at will.

Except when they do. Like the SSV Normandy. It was at the spear of the Arcturus fleet, complete with fighter escort, yet it could break away from the fight to fly into the Citadel just fine.

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So because I argue the validity of decision from a in-universe perspective (which is really the only sensible perspective to argue such big character choices) you deduce I cannot destinguish between game and reality?
:lol::lol::lol:


You know, when you turn to the "it's just a game", "it will be as the devs decide" and similar statements, it only shows how weak your position actually is.
You have to resort to going outside of the game/universe/fluff to try to (unsucesfully) justify your theories.

Mayhaps one day you'll learn the destinction between a good and bad argument. I'm not keeping my hopes up tough.

Because it is a fact that the writers write the story. And they have their reasons. You discuss this game on real world terms which just don't apply.

It does apply because the game universe is real as far as that universe in concerned.

You put more thought into it than any dev ever did. Because they were making an action game/RPG not a future space simulation. If I just see how you interpret space battles I already facepalm. One time you say they can't do this because they are too far away, because they cannot move, they cannot turn, they cannot fire, then someone posts a screenshot of how close they are and you go on about how you can't take this as an evidence because the devs made it this way for dramatury etc. You discredit your own attempts to get a picture of the situation by claiming stuff like that.

If codex and cutscene clash, which one is correct? It's not my fault the devs can't keep it consistent.
Like it or no there is such a thing as universe fluff/canon. Every fictional universe ever created has some internal rules that govern it. Most have most of the normals rules of our uiniverse (and it is implies to be like that unless stated otehrwise).
IF you aren't capable of understanding that simpel concept, then I can't help you.

So facepalm all you want, that's the only thing you're good at.

You have your own picture of things that happened and then you try to argue for them. Just like you make purely emotional decissions and then try to find a rationale/reason for this and argue for the hell of it. Alot of people disagree and you go on pretending they don't know what they are talking about whatever. You have no clue about space battles in the 22nd century, you have no clue about the battle at the citadel and you have no clue about the ships and their capability. Neither are you an admiral or whatever it takes to judge the situation. You're just as incompetent as everyone else in this regard, just with the difference that everyone else knows it. Just not you obviously. If I thought you had half a brain I'd say you're the best troll on the BSN. But I don't think you do have half a brain tbh.

I could have 1/1000th of a brain and it would still be more than you ever will have.

I'd like you to point out the "purely emotional decisions" I supposedly made.

And yes, we do have a clue about battles in 22nd century because the codex and the game tell us about them.
We know newtonian physics works. We know there is no friction. We know mass effect  fields are used. We know the ship classes and weapon ranges involved.

So you do have some solid ground to build upon. Or should I say - you could build upon if you had that solid ground. Which you don't.
Your theories and arguments are built upon ignorance, dellusion and rampant bias, so they fall apart. You yourself are to blame.

I can distinct between a good and a bad argument. Just that yours are all bad.

At least you identify them as argumetns. I can't even call what you write that.

That you wouldn't know a good argument if it hit you on the head doesn't surprise me at all. Again, your opinion doesn't mean much to me because it is just your opinion. Of course you can say the same about mine but that still doesn't make yours better than mine.

The decision to save or doom the council is made by Shepard just after killing Saren and using the Prothean discs to get control. Shepard doesn't have the overview of the battle. So you arguing you base it on things you know of codexes is the biggest hypocrisy ever. You claim you are not metagaming yet you are one of the few fools who actually read a leaked betascipt before you play the game. That alone tells more than I could every say about you. Do I have to draw you a picture?

Shepard couldn't make tactical calls from where he was, the decision to let the council die or live is simply based on the fact that the Council didn't respect you as much as you wanted so you let it die. As I said, you try to justify later, after the fact. Because in this moment you can't make tactical calls. Even if you knew all the things you claim you know. If anyone can make tactical calls then the Admirals. And they would not listen to you if they thought it was a tactical mistake. Common sense.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 28 décembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
That's why the Protheans didn't rely on their luck. That's why Shepard doesn't. You only say it is luck because you don't understand it.

Taht's the state you're very familiar with.

Or do you even know what exactly happened at the Reaper attack on the Protheans? Or why they didn't find Ilos? No, you know nothing and that's why you say it was luck. You replace lack of knowledge with the term luck like religious people replace it with god.

ERm..Vigil tells us. I believe he himself uses the term "luck" there.

Edit: You took me serious when I said that god is a human god and didn't mind the Reapers wiping the galaxy unless they wiped the humans? How can any half smart person take that serious? God is a human god lol. And who is the Alien god then? Come on. Man.

An idiot and a person pretending to be an idiot on the internet - indeed. How can we not be able to tell them apart?

Peddal harder. You're not backing up fast enough.

Lol, look, now you're just insulting. No more point to answer this. Insults are the last resort of those who have no answers.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Also, as I said beofore - ships engaged cannot just break out of comabt at will.

Except when they do. Like the SSV Normandy. It was at the spear of the Arcturus fleet, complete with fighter escort, yet it could break away from the fight to fly into the Citadel just fine.

The Normandy got to the Citadel with the enitre fleet.

And the fleet wasn't tied up - even if you call it in the save the DA, the few Geth are taken by surprise (from the reaer)

[Someone With Mass]

Not from the rear, but from above.

It's not a sea battle.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
That you wouldn't know a good argument if it hit you on the head doesn't surprise me at all. Again, your opinion doesn't mean much to because it is just your opinion. Of course you can say the same about mine but that still doesn't make yours better than mine.

It does. Mine oppinions are backed up by facts.

The decision to save or doom the council is made by Shepard just after killing Saren and using the Prothean discs to get control. Shepard doesn't have the overview of the battle. So you arguing you base it on things you know of codexes is the biggest hypocrisy ever. You claim you are not metagaming yet you are one of the few fools who actually read a leaked betascipt before you play the game. That alone tells more than I could every say about you. Do I have to draw you a picture?

Can you draw?

Reading a script is not the same as metagaming. I may have knowledge of how some events will turn up, but that doesn't have to affect my playtrough unless I want to.
After all these debates you still don't know what metagaming even means...lol.

Also, Shep doesn't have have compelte control. Maybe you should listen what Vigil sez about the data file.

Shepard couldn't make tactical calls from where he was, the decision to let the council die or live is simply based on the fact that the Council didn't respect you as much as you wanted so you let it die. As I said, you try to justify later, after the fact. Because in this moment you can't make tactical calls. Even if you knew all the things you claim you know. If anyone can make tactical calls then the Admirals. And they would not listen to you if they thought it was a tactical mistake. Common sense.

Shepard couldnt' make a decision? Sez who?

It's a rather simple issue - Sovereign needs to go down fast, before he re-takes control.
Will I waste time and ships to save the DA or will I hit Sovereign with everything right now?

I do agree that it makes little sense for Shepard to decide what the fleet would do AT ALL, so the fact the fleet follows trough whatever choice you make is of no importance.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Not from the rear, but from above.

It's not a sea battle.

Even worse.
It still means geth guns aren't pointing the right way and the ship cross-section is larger from above than it is from the rear (makign it a better target)

[Yezdigerd]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Yezdigerd wrote...

It's kinda funny that you appeal to cutscenes, when they support your case and dismiss them as "dramatic tension" when they don't.[/quote]

[quote]What am I appealing to?
Also, note that knowing things that custscenes generally get wrong, deosn't mean they get everythign wrong.[/quote]


Does it really matter? I think I just save you the trouble of explaining why the cutscense was accurately displaying things in those instances.



[quote]
Yeah, 30-40 kilometers are such insurmountable distances for a starship.[/quote]

[quote]Not really, but it does require the ships to go around. While being fired upon. And the enemy fleet between them and their destination. And they having to expose the ENGINES to enemy fire to get there.[/quote]

I haven't seen any figures about combat speed by I would expect those distances to be traversed in seconds, if not fraction of seconds.


[quote]
[quote]4. The part about exposing their rear (with the engines) to enemy fire if they do that.[/quote]Not to be nitpicky, but if the codex is to be believed, the optimal firing solution is the ships broadside, not it's rear.
[/quote]

[quote]The optimal fireing solution is always the bigegst cross-section.
But engiens are a big and juicy target.
And if the Geth are gonna pass by the Citadel fleet, then range won't be much of an issue.
Also, engines have a tendancy to point in the opposite direction of the main guns.

So the Geth would have the Citadel fleet hounding then and shooting their engines while they themselves can't return fire. The Suicide Mission has better odds of working.
[/quote]

If the side of the ship gives the enemy the best opportunity to hurt you, wouldn't it follow that that exposing the rear is preferable to exposing the side?

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
That you wouldn't know a good argument if it hit you on the head doesn't surprise me at all. Again, your opinion doesn't mean much to because it is just your opinion. Of course you can say the same about mine but that still doesn't make yours better than mine.

It does. Mine oppinions are backed up by facts.

The decision to save or doom the council is made by Shepard just after killing Saren and using the Prothean discs to get control. Shepard doesn't have the overview of the battle. So you arguing you base it on things you know of codexes is the biggest hypocrisy ever. You claim you are not metagaming yet you are one of the few fools who actually read a leaked betascipt before you play the game. That alone tells more than I could every say about you. Do I have to draw you a picture?

Can you draw?

Reading a script is not the same as metagaming. I may have knowledge of how some events will turn up, but that doesn't have to affect my playtrough unless I want to.
After all these debates you still don't know what metagaming even means...lol.

Also, Shep doesn't have have compelte control. Maybe you should listen what Vigil sez about the data file.

Shepard couldn't make tactical calls from where he was, the decision to let the council die or live is simply based on the fact that the Council didn't respect you as much as you wanted so you let it die. As I said, you try to justify later, after the fact. Because in this moment you can't make tactical calls. Even if you knew all the things you claim you know. If anyone can make tactical calls then the Admirals. And they would not listen to you if they thought it was a tactical mistake. Common sense.

Shepard couldnt' make a decision? Sez who?

It's a rather simple issue - Sovereign needs to go down fast, before he re-takes control.
Will I waste time and ships to save the DA or will I hit Sovereign with everything right now?

I do agree that it makes little sense for Shepard to decide what the fleet would do AT ALL, so the fact the fleet follows trough whatever choice you make is of no importance.

Damnit you have an issue with reading/understanding me. I am not sure if it just me or you do that in general.

When did I say Shepard gets COMPLETE control?

When did I say Shepard could not make decisions?

I said Shepard gets control, which he did obviously, and that he cannot make tactical decisions. For once he is not an admiral and also he is not in the position, neither in rank nor in the right place. They have Admirals for that. Shepard is a Spectre, not more not less. You can 'ask' them to save the Council or not. But it is their choice, ultimately. Also, if Sovereign could open the citadel relay without killing Shepard, why is he not doing it? Why is he reviving Saren? Answer me this. Because this decides the question whether saving the DA was a gamble at all. because then all depends on Sovereign defeating Shepard, the Alliance fleet is secondary.

Also, you're being delusional. If you read the script before or know spoilers you will not play the game in the same way as you played without knowing it. Because your decision making process changes. If you know how the human mind works than you'd know that your mind controls you as much as you control your mind. You can't help to subconsciously make decisions that you wouldn't make if you didn't know certain things. That's pretty much the reason why I shouldn't even be here anymore. Because I gets spoiled every day and it will pretty much ruin my first playthrough.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 28 décembre 2011 - 12:51 .

[nitefyre410]

[quote]Yezdigerd wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Yezdigerd wrote...

It's kinda funny that you appeal to cutscenes, when they support your case and dismiss them as "dramatic tension" when they don't.[/quote]

[quote]What am I appealing to?
Also, note that knowing things that custscenes generally get wrong, deosn't mean they get everythign wrong.[/quote]


Does it really matter? I think I just save you the trouble of explaining why the cutscense was accurately displaying things in those instances.



[quote]
Yeah, 30-40 kilometers are such insurmountable distances for a starship.[/quote]

[quote]Not really, but it does require the ships to go around. While being fired upon. And the enemy fleet between them and their destination. And they having to expose the ENGINES to enemy fire to get there.[/quote]

I haven't seen any figures about combat speed by I would expect those distances to be traversed in seconds, if not fraction of seconds.


[quote]
[quote]4. The part about exposing their rear (with the engines) to enemy fire if they do that.[/quote]Not to be nitpicky, but if the codex is to be believed, the optimal firing solution is the ships broadside, not it's rear.
[/quote]

[quote]The optimal fireing solution is always the bigegst cross-section.
But engiens are a big and juicy target.
And if the Geth are gonna pass by the Citadel fleet, then range won't be much of an issue.
Also, engines have a tendancy to point in the opposite direction of the main guns.

So the Geth would have the Citadel fleet hounding then and shooting their engines while they themselves can't return fire. The Suicide Mission has better odds of working.
[/quote]

If the side of the ship gives the enemy the best opportunity to hurt you, wouldn't it follow that that exposing the rear is preferable to exposing the side?

[/quote]  


No - you engines are  at the rear and thats is usually the weakest  part of the ship defense wise , while in most case the front and the sides have the best armor .  So yes the ship side may be a larger target to hit but its also better built to take said hit.

[Someone With Mass]

By the way, that "surprise" would have more than likely lasted for about twelve milliseconds, since the geth communicate at the speed of light and are capable of calculating strategic moves a lot faster than the Alliance ships can.

Also, space is huge. They can afford to move around a bit. Keeping the guns pointed at the enemy at all times is also a very flawed strategy, because then your movements can be predicted and used against you by other enemy ships.

[PnXMarcin1PL]

This thread keeps getting better and better. Soo many fights here

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yezdigerd wrote...
Does it really matter?

Yes.

Not really, but it does require the ships to go around. While being fired upon. And the enemy fleet between them and their destination. And they having to expose the ENGINES to enemy fire to get there.

I haven't seen any figures about combat speed by I would expect those distances to be traversed in seconds, if not fraction of seconds.

Not under combat conditions. Changing direction is space take time.
And agian - cutscene distances (which contradict fluff distances).

The optimal fireing solution is always the bigegst cross-section.
But engiens are a big and juicy target.
And if the Geth are gonna pass by the Citadel fleet, then range won't be much of an issue.
Also, engines have a tendancy to point in the opposite direction of the main guns.

So the Geth would have the Citadel fleet hounding then and shooting their engines while they themselves can't return fire. The Suicide Mission has better odds of working.

If the side of the ship gives the enemy the best opportunity to hurt you, wouldn't it follow that that exposing the rear is preferable to exposing the side?

Well, the sides make it easier to hit you since the surface area is bigger.
But damage to engines means you won't be moving at all wich also make you far easier to hit (and prevents you from reaching your objective)
Also at bigger distances it's easier to hit a target moving away from you, since the movement deviation is smaller

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...
Damnit you have an issue with reading/understanding me. I am not sure if it just me or you do that in general.

Maybe you should try making your point clearer.

I said Shepard gets control, which he did obviously, and that he cannot make tactical decisions. For once he is not an admiral and also he is not in the position, neither in rank nor in the right place. They have Admirals for that.

There is no admiral in the field. Sheppard seems to know more about the situation then Hackeet, who at that point is beyond the relay.
IIRC; Hackett ASKED for recomendation. Sheppard din't order anything.

Shepard is a Spectre, not more not less. You can 'ask' them to save the Council or not. But it is their choice, ultimately. Also, if Sovereign could open the citadel relay without killing Shepard, why is he not doing it? Why is he reviving Saren? Answer me this. Because this decides the question whether saving the DA was a gamble at all. because then all depends on Sovereign defeating Shepard, the Alliance fleet is secondary.

Becase he wasn0t to get rid of Shep?
Becase another pair of hands onthe consoel can help him hack faster?
Because he wants to get Vigils Data file out of the console to speed up the override?

Also, Sovereign is tough. Really tough. But not invincible. Wrapping things up before the Citadel fleet joins the 5th Fleet or before other reinforcement arrive would be a smart thing.
So again, getting things done fast may be important.

Also, you're being delusional. If you read the script before or know spoilers you will not play the game in the same way as you played without knowing it. Because your decision making process changes.
If you know how the human mind works than you'd know that your mind controls you as much as you control your mind. You can't help to subconsciously make decisions that you wouldn't make if you didn't know certain things. That's pretty much the reason why I shouldn't even be here anymore. Because I gets spoiled every day and it will pretty much ruin my first playthrough.

Maybe for you.
I'm perfectly capable of roleplaying and deliberatly removing data from my characters decision-making process.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

By the way, that "surprise" would have more than likely lasted for about twelve milliseconds, since the geth communicate at the speed of light and are capable of calculating strategic moves a lot faster than the Alliance ships can.

True, but capital ships don't move on a dime.
Geth may have started to re-position and manouver 12 miliseconds after the Alliance Fleet arrived, but if it takes 6 seconds for hteir ships to turn around, that's stil l6 seconds in which they can take fire with impunity and not be able to fire back.

Also, space is huge. They can afford to move around a bit. Keeping the guns pointed at the enemy at all times is also a very flawed strategy, because then your movements can be predicted and used against you by other enemy ships.

Space is huge. So are weapon ranges. And ships generally don't stay close to eachother (heck, two ships being in visual range is considered CLOSE in space).
Which is why two fleets take up a large area of space.

And you are right. You cannot keep your guns pointed at hte enmy all the time. It's a battle betwen offense and defense.  You have to dodge and move..and in space combat manouvers are a lot more time and fuel intensive than on Earth.

There was a space-fighter sim once with full newtonian physics. Was very interesting to play, if frustrating at times. I'd tell you go check it out, but  I can't remember it's name now.