440 réponses à ce sujet

[Icinix]

The way I see it - saving the Destiny Ascension - the gratitude of thousands of smexy leather bound Asari commandos.

[AlexXIV]

Annoyed Dragon wrote...
I think it mentioned in a codex not 100% sure but even if it isn't the long term benefits stand,

It's not mentioned and if it happened we would have seen it in a vid sequence because it is sort of imporant. Also as others mentioned the DA was on the run trying to save the Council, and their main drive core was offline so we don't even know if they were still able to get into position. Yes, the long term benefits stand, if you live long enough to see them. Because if Sovereign opens the relay next thing that happens is Reapers bullrushing the Citadel.

Mind you I save the DA too. Just saying that the choice is idealistic but also a gamble. The reason I save it is simply that in my first playthrough I was curious if it would work (didn't risk more than having to go back to a save game) and also because the game seems to treat it like the 'best' decision.

[AlexXIV]

Icinix wrote...

The way I see it - saving the Destiny Ascension - the gratitude of thousands of smexy leather bound Asari commandos.

Obviously the Asari Councilor owes you her life ... hmm ...

[CmdrStJean]

Interesting that we're still going over this now. Although perhaps not surprising since ME3 is only six weeks away or so. In my case, I never saw why the "Focus on Sovereign" option could in anyway be considered a renegade act in the first place. When I first came across that decision when I went through ME1, I spent probably 30 minutes at that point weighing each option, since both had value and could be justified on any number of grounds. In fact, at the time I wasn't sure if helping the Ascension might not backfire by leaving too few viable craft remaining to fight Sovereign in the end. Of course, now that I've seen what happens it seems like a logical enough choice, but in that moment Shepard can't know that.

In this last go through of ME1 I'm actually going to let the Council die and see what happens, again I don't consider it a Renegade act to do so, but tactically sound given the magnitude of the situation. I hear everyone will hate you afterwards and the Citadel gets to be quite a bit more... unfriendly but it's a change I'd like to see and it is, I think, a much less clear cut end game decision than what we get in ME2 where the lines are a bit more stark.

What I'm really curious about is how the lack of the Destiny Ascension coupled with (presumably) fewer losses to the Human fleet will affect the outcome in ME3. The council has proven time and again to be a hindrance and blind to facts so I'm not really convinced having some turnover in that department will make much difference. Well at least in so far as I'm going for the middle ground "Paragade" ending, so no all human council or anything to deal with. We shall see, hopefully Bioware will make it interesting.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Sovereign already failed when Shepard killed Saren. From that point on it was just Sovereign vs the galaxy, so killing the reaper got a lot less urgent.

[Annoyed Dragon]

Roxy12 wrote...

Annoyed Dragon wrote...

I think it mentioned in a codex not 100% sure but even if it isn't the long term benefits stand,

Hackett mentioned it (Arrival DLC)

Found it he says it at 6:30 on the vid.

[AlexXIV]

I'd really hope a alien-friendly paragon Shep who saved the Council and blew up the base has an easier time to convince the aliens to unite under him/her to get the job done. That's the main reason why paragon is a sensible choice, not just a morale choice.

[CmdrStJean]

tetrisblock4x1 - good point, and one I didn't even consider when I initially made my decision, in that time, to save the Council. Interesting you bring it up, since it sort of illustrates how not every obvious bit of information will come to mind in a crisis situation (even in the world of gaming). Not to say I still don't think focusing on Sovereign is a valid decision, but I see where you're coming from indeed.

[AlexXIV]

Annoyed Dragon wrote...

Roxy12 wrote...

Annoyed Dragon wrote...

I think it mentioned in a codex not 100% sure but even if it isn't the long term benefits stand,

Hackett mentioned it (Arrival DLC)

Found it he says it at 6:30 on the vid.

Lol indeed. So they fixed it in the last DLC of the sequel. Better than nothing I guess. So that means the DA was in the position to fire through the Alliance fleet which was right between the DA and Sovereign and the loss of the main drive didn't stop her from getting into position. It doesn't change though that it was taking a risk because Shep couldn't know the status of the DA.

Anyway the thing that disturbs me most are Shep's words. 'Save the Council at all costs.' That's what makes it reckless tbh. Because all costs would mean even if they can't bring down Sovereign fast enough afterwards.

[AlexXIV]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Sovereign already failed when Shepard killed Saren. From that point on it was just Sovereign vs the galaxy, so killing the reaper got a lot less urgent.

No, because if Sovereign kills you, the Reapers win. So it's not over after killing Saren.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 26 janvier 2012 - 01:43 .

[darkiddd]

AlexXIV wrote...

Annoyed Dragon wrote...
I think it mentioned in a codex not 100% sure but even if it isn't the long term benefits stand,

It's not mentioned and if it happened we would have seen it in a vid sequence because it is sort of imporant. Also as others mentioned the DA was on the run trying to save the Council, and their main drive core was offline so we don't even know if they were still able to get into position. Yes, the long term benefits stand, if you live long enough to see them. Because if Sovereign opens the relay next thing that happens is Reapers bullrushing the Citadel.

Mind you I save the DA too. Just saying that the choice is idealistic but also a gamble. The reason I save it is simply that in my first playthrough I was curious if it would work (didn't risk more than having to go back to a save game) and also because the game seems to treat it like the 'best' decision.

that's metagaming. I hate metagaming. 

I save the council because I always think that although I'm giving sovereign more time to open the relay I'm securing a strategic advantage destroying the geth, and doing so I avoid an unprotected rearguard if I go directly to sovereign, so I have more chances to destroy it. Sure sovereign may have opened the relay when I've saved the council, it's a gamble. It's also a gamble to go directly against sovereign because you don't know if you will destroy it in time being between sovereign and the geth, maybe your fleet is the one destroyed with sovereign in front and the geth behind, you may gain time but you lose strategic advantage.

Both choices have its logical conclusions. I choose to save the council because in doing so I destroy the geth and secure more chances at defeating sovereign with my rearguard protected even if I give sovereign more time. The council's saving is a colateral consecuence (although a very welcomed one in a long term point of view, but that isn't relevant in that critical moment)

Concentrating on sovereign would be the undisputed right choice if you had the certainty that the alliance would be capable of destroying it with the geth attacking from behind but you can't be sure of that. Even so I can recognize the reasons of concentrating on sovereign and it doesn't seem to me a bad choice because as I said, it has its reasons, mainly, the time. 

 

[AlexXIV]

darkiddd wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Annoyed Dragon wrote...
I think it mentioned in a codex not 100% sure but even if it isn't the long term benefits stand,

It's not mentioned and if it happened we would have seen it in a vid sequence because it is sort of imporant. Also as others mentioned the DA was on the run trying to save the Council, and their main drive core was offline so we don't even know if they were still able to get into position. Yes, the long term benefits stand, if you live long enough to see them. Because if Sovereign opens the relay next thing that happens is Reapers bullrushing the Citadel.

Mind you I save the DA too. Just saying that the choice is idealistic but also a gamble. The reason I save it is simply that in my first playthrough I was curious if it would work (didn't risk more than having to go back to a save game) and also because the game seems to treat it like the 'best' decision.

that's metagaming. I hate metagaming. 

I save the council because I always think that although I'm giving sovereign more time to open the relay I'm securing a strategic advantage destroying the geth, and doing so I avoid an unprotected rearguard if I go directly to sovereign, so I have more chances to destroy it. Sure sovereign may have opened the relay when I've saved the council, it's a gamble. It's also a gamble to go directly against sovereign because you don't know if you will destroy it in time being between sovereign and the geth, maybe your fleet is the one destroyed with sovereign in front and the geth behind, you may gain time but you lose strategic advantage.

Both choices have its logical conclusions. I choose to save the council because in doing so I destroy the geth and secure more chances at defeating sovereign with my rearguard protected even if I give sovereign more time. The council's saving is a colateral consecuence (although a very welcomed one in a long term point of view, but that isn't relevant in that critical moment)

Concentrating on sovereign would be the undisputed right choice if you had the certainty that the alliance would be capable of destroying it with the geth attacking from behind but you can't be sure of that. Even so I can recognize the reasons of concentrating on sovereign and it doesn't seem to me a bad choice because as I said, it has its reasons, mainly, the time. 

 

It could be a matter of seconds. Sovereign is locked at the Citadel already. I mean even with the firepower of the DA you obviously lose alliance ships. Which means less firepower on Sovereign as well. My main problem is that Shepard is the only one who knows of/believes in the Reapers. That means Shep is the only one who knows Sovereigns plan. But he is making this choice as if it didn't matter what Sovereign is trying to do. Opening a relay to dark space. That's why the whole choice is badly written. Because instead of Shep Hackett could have made the choice to save the Council as well. The only advantage Shep had over Hackett at this point is that he knew what the Reapers are all about.

[naledgeborn]

If you're going for the highest numbers of lives saved, sacrificing 8 (X 300 personnel each) Alliance Cruisers for the Destiny Ascension (10,000 personnel) is the right call. The Council being on board is an added bonus.

It boils down to whether or not you're willing to sacrifice humans for non-humans. Which I am, when it's called for as in the case of 2,400 vs 10,000.

[darkiddd]

AlexXIV wrote...

darkiddd wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Annoyed Dragon wrote...
I think it mentioned in a codex not 100% sure but even if it isn't the long term benefits stand,

It's not mentioned and if it happened we would have seen it in a vid sequence because it is sort of imporant. Also as others mentioned the DA was on the run trying to save the Council, and their main drive core was offline so we don't even know if they were still able to get into position. Yes, the long term benefits stand, if you live long enough to see them. Because if Sovereign opens the relay next thing that happens is Reapers bullrushing the Citadel.

Mind you I save the DA too. Just saying that the choice is idealistic but also a gamble. The reason I save it is simply that in my first playthrough I was curious if it would work (didn't risk more than having to go back to a save game) and also because the game seems to treat it like the 'best' decision.

that's metagaming. I hate metagaming. 

I save the council because I always think that although I'm giving sovereign more time to open the relay I'm securing a strategic advantage destroying the geth, and doing so I avoid an unprotected rearguard if I go directly to sovereign, so I have more chances to destroy it. Sure sovereign may have opened the relay when I've saved the council, it's a gamble. It's also a gamble to go directly against sovereign because you don't know if you will destroy it in time being between sovereign and the geth, maybe your fleet is the one destroyed with sovereign in front and the geth behind, you may gain time but you lose strategic advantage.

Both choices have its logical conclusions. I choose to save the council because in doing so I destroy the geth and secure more chances at defeating sovereign with my rearguard protected even if I give sovereign more time. The council's saving is a colateral consecuence (although a very welcomed one in a long term point of view, but that isn't relevant in that critical moment)

Concentrating on sovereign would be the undisputed right choice if you had the certainty that the alliance would be capable of destroying it with the geth attacking from behind but you can't be sure of that. Even so I can recognize the reasons of concentrating on sovereign and it doesn't seem to me a bad choice because as I said, it has its reasons, mainly, the time. 

 

It could be a matter of seconds. Sovereign is locked at the Citadel already. I mean even with the firepower of the DA you obviously lose alliance ships. Which means less firepower on Sovereign as well. My main problem is that Shepard is the only one who knows of/believes in the Reapers. That means Shep is the only one who knows Sovereigns plan. But he is making this choice as if it didn't matter what Sovereign is trying to do. Opening a relay to dark space. That's why the whole choice is badly written. Because instead of Shep Hackett could have made the choice to save the Council as well. The only advantage Shep had over Hackett at this point is that he knew what the Reapers are all about.

yeah look at what I wrote on page 5. Saving the council or concentrating on sovereign are both logical decisions having in mind that sovereign is opening a relay to dark space. But the galaxy doesn't know what sovereign is or what he is doing so defending the first choice to the public opinion is easy and strategically logical, the second decision in front of the public opinion is a strategic failure.

[AlexXIV]

darkiddd wrote...
yeah look at what I wrote on page 5. Saving the council or concentrating on sovereign are both logical decisions having in mind that sovereign is opening a relay to dark space. But the galaxy doesn't know what sovereign is or what he is doing so defending the first choice to the public opinion is easy and strategically logical, the second decision in front of the public opinion is a strategic failure.

Well I am too genre savy to actually think the morale choice would turn out badly. Metagaming back and forth, in my first playthrough I always play nice. So in Bioware games I usually do right from first playthrough on. I think they are missing an opportunity though. They could have made the neutral choice the best. For example saving the Council could have led to the reaper invasion. It would give the decision more depth tbh because it is not the obvious white knight choice, but the necessary. The whole deal of ME is that Shepard keeps saying we will sacrifice everything to stop the Reapers. But obviously when it comes to the council decision Shep says 'Save the Council at all costs' when he/she should have said 'Take Sovereign down at all costs.'

[seirhart]

AlexXIV wrote...

I'd really hope a alien-friendly paragon Shep who saved the Council and blew up the base has an easier time to convince the aliens to unite under him/her to get the job done. That's the main reason why paragon is a sensible choice, not just a morale choice.

This I agree with, I think an alien-friendly paragon shepard will have a much much easier time convincing the aliens and the council of siding with s/he than any other type of character.

[Kasen]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but after reading the first few pages I think it would have helped if we had been shown (rather than simply told) the devastating power of the Destiny Ascension. As it was, I don't believe we actually see the vessel destroy a single Geth ship during the battle. It might have made some people think twice if it had been shown plowing through a dozen Geth cruisers on it's way out of the battle zone.

That said, I chose to save the Destiny Ascension; saving the Council was not my specific intent behind the choice. There are valid political and tactical reasons to do so, denial of that is short-sighted at best.

[seirhart]

True I saved the Destiny Ascension but I didn't save the ship because I wanted to, I don't give care about that ship. The only reason I saved the Ascension was simply the council was on that ship, if the council was on another ship I would save that ship only for the council.

[Gold Dragon]

Saving the Council is a strong strategical move, tho the actual doing may not be among the best tactical decisions ever heard.

Sovereign is a threat to every species in the galaxy, not just a Human concern.  Yes, if Sovereign wins, the presence or Absence of the Councillors is a non-issue.  But should you win, the presence or absence of the councillors becomes a key factor.

Look at how many people lost their lives fighting against ONE Reaper.  Humanity can not fight this war on it's own, as many wish it (not just humans, I might add), especially not if we actually want a dream of a chance of winning.

Having allies is mandantory.  Having the councillors alive makes getting them easier.

The Sacrifice of Lives in obtaining this is fairly high, also.

Strategy is a Plan of battle over a long period of time, while tactics is actually how you fight each individual engagement.  The saying: No plan ever survives the meeting of the enemy is valid.  Once you engage the enemy, the overall battle plan is lost.

The choice of saving the Destiny Ascension is actually a choice of whether the risk is worth it in the long run.

For those as save the Destiny Ascension, the risk is thought to be worth it.  For those as let it be destroyed, it is believed that the risk isn't worthwile in the long run.  Both are equally valid, niether are stupid.

And Soveriegn was defeated by Shepard.  When Soveriegn took over the corpse of Saren thru the implants, and Shepard subsequently destroyed it, the backlash stunned the Reaper, momentarily dropping the shielding.  That the Normandy actually did the deed is inconsequential.

[Kasen]

A Golden Dragon wrote...

Saving the Council is a strong strategical move, tho the actual doing may not be among the best tactical decisions ever heard.

Sovereign is a threat to every species in the galaxy, not just a Human concern.  Yes, if Sovereign wins, the presence or Absence of the Councillors is a non-issue.  But should you win, the presence or absence of the councillors becomes a key factor.

Look at how many people lost their lives fighting against ONE Reaper.  Humanity can not fight this war on it's own, as many wish it (not just humans, I might add), especially not if we actually want a dream of a chance of winning.

Having allies is mandantory.  Having the councillors alive makes getting them easier.

The Sacrifice of Lives in obtaining this is fairly high, also.

Strategy is a Plan of battle over a long period of time, while tactics is actually how you fight each individual engagement.  The saying: No plan ever survives the meeting of the enemy is valid.  Once you engage the enemy, the overall battle plan is lost.

The choice of saving the Destiny Ascension is actually a choice of whether the risk is worth it in the long run.

For those as save the Destiny Ascension, the risk is thought to be worth it.  For those as let it be destroyed, it is believed that the risk isn't worthwile in the long run.  Both are equally valid, niether are stupid.

And Soveriegn was defeated by Shepard.  When Soveriegn took over the corpse of Saren thru the implants, and Shepard subsequently destroyed it, the backlash stunned the Reaper, momentarily dropping the shielding.  That the Normandy actually did the deed is inconsequential.

Better than I said it, I should have specified that both choices are valid.

[naledgeborn]

seirhart wrote...

True I saved the Destiny Ascension but I didn't save the ship because I wanted to, I don't give care about that ship. The only reason I saved the Ascension was simply the council was on that ship, if the council was on another ship I would save that ship only for the council.

And that's incredibly stupid. Politicians (3) can be replaced. The resources needed to rebuild the Destiny Ascension the (Citadel Council flagship) would be a huge strain. Not to mention the experienced soldiers who would be lost on that ship.

If the Council were on a Frigate or even a Cruiser I'd sacrifice them without hesitation. If I had to pick the DA vs the Council I'd be the DA everytime.

Modifié par naledgeborn, 26 janvier 2012 - 02:29 .

[CannonO]

Gawd. Would you people just select avatars already? It is getting mighty confusing.

I don't think metagaming matters much after the first play through. Sometimes it should be avoided, but it can also be rather inevitable.

[atheelogos]

naledgeborn wrote...

If you're going for the highest numbers of lives saved, sacrificing 8 (X 300 personnel each) Alliance Cruisers for the Destiny Ascension (10,000 personnel) is the right call. The Council being on board is an added bonus.

It boils down to whether or not you're willing to sacrifice humans for non-humans. Which I am, when it's called for as in the case of 2,400 vs 10,000.

No that is not the end all be all. I could frame differently.

There was no way we could have known that saving the Destiny Ascension would work. Saving our strength to fight Sov was the right call because if we won we would have saved trillions of lives instead of risking all those people for 3 politicians, or 10,003 if you want to add the crew to the equation.

So we have 
1000000000000+ lives vs 10,003 lives. So which group should be saved? The right answer should go without saying.

Modifié par atheelogos, 26 janvier 2012 - 02:53 .