913 réponses à ce sujet

[Kreid]

The thread doing the math about the Reaper cycles came to the conclusion that there had to be at least 1.000 capital ships if a civilization was fully ascended each cycle, there's no way the fleets can win that even if the Reapers are weakened or disoriented.

[PsyrenY]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

And about "they said we never ever ever could conventionally win!" well, they said it before Shep managed to gather assets.

Wrong. Hackett says it even after you've gathered everything, including all 5 major fleets, and have full galactic readiness. Go watch his mission briefing with Shepard and Anderson prior to Hammer.

"But this is the only plan we have. If we wait, the Reapers bleed us slowly. Conventionally... we can't defeat the Reapers without the Crucible."

I know you guys want to have your "moment of defiance" and spit in the hologram's eye, but a victory in a frontal assault is even more "space magic" than anything the Crucible can do.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 10 avril 2012 - 01:43 .

[the slynx]

Optimystic_X wrote...

I know you guys want to have your "moment of defiance" and spit in the hologram's eye, but a victory in a frontal assault is even more "space magic" than anything the Crucible can do.

I get that there's disagreement about this, but please read some of the suggestions for how the Reapers might be weakened rather than defeated by the Citadel, if you haven't already. We're fully aware of the 'this is space magic, too' argument and many have come up with different ways to work around it.

[FOX216BC]

Creid-X wrote...

The thread doing the math about the Reaper cycles came to the conclusion that there had to be at least 1.000 capital ships if a civilization was fully ascended each cycle, there's no way the fleets can win that even if the Reapers are weakened or disoriented.

Yet the battle of cannae  proofs that numbers don't matter.
Funny you use the word "disoriented". As it is just what you need to defeat a  enemy stronger then you and you're allies.

Modifié par FOX216BC, 10 avril 2012 - 02:47 .

[the slynx]

FOX216BC wrote...
Yet the battle of cannae  ...

Funny you use the word "disoriented". As it is just what you need to defeat a  enemy stronger then you ...

I endorse any post that references the Punic Wars.

[Nieseln]

I agree, that this compromise is the one I'd recommend - add a fourth option, whereby Shepherd refuses with the options presented. How the drama unfolds from there let Bioware decide, but at least it would allow for a paragon Shepherd to stay true to his/her identity.

The only thing I'd add is to remove the effective military readiness on the multiplayer option. Seriously. I wouldn't care if the franchise started off as multiplayer - I'd simply never have started it, but to stick it in at the end as something you have to do to get the best ending, simply galls.

[PhoenixDove1]

bump so people can vote either way.

[Funkdrspot]

Personally I think it would cheapen the power the reapers are supposed to have by allowing a conventional victory. Maybe if the batarians were still around

[Vaktathi]

I'd be pretty ok if the game ended this way, blowing off the Starchild and smashing the reapers with your own fleets in a bloody and terrible war. It'd certainly be better than the ending we did get. Have something on the citadel/crucible thing bring down their kinetic barriers to open them up to conventional attack. With their barriers down, even the Normandy is capable of inflicting a mortal blow on a Reaper as shown in ME1 where the SR1 blew a through-and-through on Soverign with its barriers down.

Modifié par Vaktathi, 10 avril 2012 - 06:25 .

[Solmanian]

Subject M wrote...

Defeating the Reapers conventionally should not be an option. Its not their narrative function.
Their function is to be the cosmic threat that can only be countered by indirect and highly unconventional means. The purpose of meeting them in battle is only to buy those taking the ring to mount doom more time.

^ this. absulotely currect. If the combined might of middle earth could break the armies of sauron, the felowship would've been redundant.

[Solmanian]

Nieseln wrote...

*snip*

The only thing I'd add is to remove the effective military readiness on the multiplayer option. Seriously. I wouldn't care if the franchise started off as multiplayer - I'd simply never have started it, but to stick it in at the end as something you have to do to get the best ending, simply galls.

That is not correct. your decision to either destroy or salvage the collector base, determines your ability to get the "best" outcome out of trying to destroy or control the reapers. And isn't your past decisions mattering is what people were arguing about?

Also don't forget the the MP bonus decays over time, so you have to play MP consistently to maintain it. It is simply a balancing thing: If you do MP, you don't have to do every last side quest and find every hidden war asset. Those who like MP spend their time in MP instead of exploration.

[Elite Midget]

If they add in that option they would be spiteful and make it like the others, only the Reapers win. It's either you obey the Starchild or you're wrong in Biowares eyes.

[CrutchCricket]

The bull**** holokid must be purged. But if I can't erase his entire goddamn existence I am in favor of anything that allows me to dismiss him as Reaper trickery

[CrutchCricket]

Opsrbest wrote...

I ask this with all intent of curiosity. What is so difficult about understanding that Bioware has no intentions to change the ending and is only clarifying and expanding on the current ending?

I think it's understood just fine. And not accepted just as well.

[CrutchCricket]

Funkdrspot wrote...

Personally I think it would cheapen the power the reapers are supposed to have by allowing a conventional victory. Maybe if the batarians were still around

We've already proven they're not invincible. It's just a matter of scale and quantity.

And you can't honestly use the words "cheapen the Reapers" in DEFENCE of the stupid holokid can you?

[a.m.p]

Nieseln wrote...

The only thing I'd add is to remove the effective military readiness on the multiplayer option. Seriously. I wouldn't care if the franchise started off as multiplayer - I'd simply never have started it, but to stick it in at the end as something you have to do to get the best ending, simply galls.

Removing multiplayer requirements is a whole other can of worms, and I agree completely.  No single-player content should be locked behind arbitrary multiplayer percentages, not in Mass Effect.

Solmanian wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Defeating the Reapers conventionally should not be an option. Its not their narrative function.
Their function is to be the cosmic threat that can only be countered by indirect and highly unconventional means. The purpose of meeting them in battle is only to buy those taking the ring to mount doom more time.

^ this. absulotely currect. If the combined might of middle earth could break the armies of sauron, the felowship would've been redundant.

As much as everyone loves making that comparison, I think there is a less than subtle difference. The ring wasn't an arbitrary unexplained plot device that showed up in the second chapter of the last book.The fellowship was dragging it to mount doom since day one. And that journey was the focus of the story with the whole might of middle earth being a secondary plot.
Neither did Frodo suddenly cooperate with Sauron to find a solution to his ongiong logistical problems.

Modifié par a.m.p, 10 avril 2012 - 07:43 .

[a.m.p]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...

I ask this with all intent of curiosity. What is so difficult about understanding that Bioware has no intentions to change the ending and is only clarifying and expanding on the current ending?

I think it's understood just fine. And not accepted just as well.

This. The endings are broken. Clarifying and expanding is not going to make them not broken. Neither is my compromise, by the way. But by my estimation it could make them 50% less broken.

Modifié par a.m.p, 10 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[Solmanian]

a.m.p wrote...

@ Solmanian

         1.   Thanks for these references. I'm having a feeling my next instance of going full nerd is going to be the analysis of everything that is known about the fleets. Because that issue is annoyingly confusing and keeps coming up.

As speculative (what, I'm doing what they want me to!) counterpoints, I can offer this.

1) Dreadnaughts aren't the only ships, and according to me2 codex the Thanix cannons reverse-engineered from sovereign are widely spread and can be installed even on fighters. And two hits from them can blow up a collector cruiser. The speculation here is that the collector cruiser was a sufficiently advanced ship with strong shields and not just a rock with a thruster and a cannon. Which we have no way of knowing, On one hand those guys had all sorts of reaper tech, on the other hand they were dumb.

2) Pure speculation, but what I know of history tells me that when faced with owerwhelming odds you mobilize all your resources and build more of the ships that are regularly blown up. To clarify, I am again not talking dreadnaughts. Yes, a lot of resources are being thrown at the crucible. But I refuse to believe Hackett&co did not have a plan B. If they can hide the crucible construction site from the reapers, they can hide other industrial facilities. The galaxy is huge.

          2.   I maintain that speculating about the reaper numbers is pointless. It can be anything at all, because we have zero trustworthy information. Writers don't count, if they want me to know something they should put it into the game.

         3.   I didn't say anything about homeworlds. There are a lot of relays. Most dormant. Some in uninhabited systems. Some in systems that had been almost reaped clean. And the reapers come running in packs whenever we start scanning and beeping. There is the issue of finding and accelarating a suitable rock, I guess, which is a purely engineering problem. And if it came to a choice of blowing up Sol with the bulk of their fleet, I'd probably take that.

As for the anti-reaper gun, I didn't say blow up, I said damage. Whatever killed the me2 derelict reaper then hit Klendagon in a different solar system and left a giant canyon on its surface.

         4.   "the thing you are refering to (from the first earth mission I assume), wasn't a reaper at all"  Yes it was.
Although I do agree that shooting it with a cain was silly.

Add to that, as I said, a scenario where we in some clever way use the fact that the citadel controls reapers against them and the odds are a lot more different.

5. As for FTL, suppose we know some reapers are in dark space (maybe we fought them and they retreated). We know that they could come back in force now that they take us seriously, take the citadel, shut down the relay network and kill us. Damn straight we'll be doing FTL or relay-building research as best we can.

1. well sure. The shenghai break the war asset system. How can a single regular cruiser be worth almost twice than a stock alliance cruiser, as much as the asari super-cruiser, and almost as much as the volus uber-dread (A dread armed only with thanix cannons? it's one of the few vessles that I think can take a reaper head on)...
1.1) yeah, dreads don't comprise the majority of the fleets. Thats why the reaper have destroyers, that are designed to engage any vessel of cruiser size and below. That way the big reapers can consentrate on wiping out the dreads. considering the diference in mass between destroyers and soveriegns, my calculator says that the materials used for a 2km reaper can be used to construct approx 700~ of the 160m destroyers (presuming they are shrunk to scale). And considering they are made from more sources (each cycle one species is converted to a soveriegn class, and all other species and leftovers are used to construct destroyers), even with the fact the reapers probably suffer alot more casualties among destroyers than soveriegns, I find it hard to believe the ratio is less than a 1000:1 for the number of destroyers per soveriegn, and the cinematics certainly show us that there are ALOT of them. And each has barriars comparable to a dread. as for the number of cruisers in the allied fleet, an optimistic evaluation will give you a ratio of 16:1 at best. if we consider that some fleets are more heavily invested in the non-dread classes (like the quarians and the minor races) I'd saythat an extremely favorable estimation would give 3000-5000 cruisers (as I said, extremly favorable. In reality it's probably more like half that at the most).

1.2) actualy thats quite the opposite. You see which class/type performed best in combat (i.e. least got blown up) and replicate it in masse. Just look up the T-34, and how it practicaly replaced all other soviet tanks in WWII. (I happened to be a tank commander in my youth, so I know my tank history...). And yes hacket says: it's the only plan we got. So, no plan B...

2. I realy don't have a counter argumet for "writers don't count"... By that reasoning even if I produced a signed affidavit by Ray Mazuka saying "there are over 10,000 reapers", that still won't be considered "cannon".

3. A) the reapers are centered around population centers. There is no reason for large reaper forces to occupy abandoned systems. At best you'll be sacrifing milions and permanantly damaging the relay system for destroying 3-5 destroyers. Each time. And blowing up sol, and oblitirating the majority of allied forces (whom you convinced that concentrating their efforts on liberating earth is a great idea, is the definition of phyric victory. you'll maybe wipe out a major part of the reaper forces, but you'll also destroy the last best effort of the galactic community at organized resistence. And then you're left with all the forces besieging the other homeworlds, who should be more than capable of finishing the job, especialy with no one to oppose them. Please tell me your solution to this isn't blowing up all the homeworlds...
it's one thing smashing an astroid at a defenceless relays. With a reaper around it's a different matter. With a weapon capable of north of 100 kiliton of fire power, destroying your rock shouldn't be that hard. Or they can do what every ship in ME is said to do, according to the codex, when they're about to lose a fight: jump to FTL.

4. Yup, you were right and I was wrong. No shame in admiting a mistake. I'm guessing the cain killed it with a headshot? Or the more probable explaination, the strain of carrying the cannon weakend his barriars (even more so with operating on the ground, which the codex says severly weaken reaper shields). Infact, ground based reapers seem to rely more on their armor platings.

5. my oil metaphor still applies. There's been awareness to the oil problem since the 70's. We know it's gonna run out, and not realy that far down the line. Prices keep climbing, and there will come a time that only the filthy rich could afford a car. And we know that if we the status quo is kept, when the last drop of oil burns out it's gonna be a catastrophe comparable to losing the relays at the MEverse. And yet there's no tangible progress. cars that don't work on fossil fuels are practicaly non-existent, and the ones that exist are outnumbered a million to one by those that run on fossil fuel... The fact that their price is considerably higher insures  this trend. Only when the oil runs out, will there be real motivation to find a substitute.

[Byronic-Knight]

 All of this could have been avoided if they would have just gone with what they (potentially) had before:
h9.abload.de/img/jhtqyrqxxg.jpg

(I can't get the image to show up. Follow the link.)

Found it in this thread: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10708065/4

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 10 avril 2012 - 08:10 .

[PsyrenY]

a.m.p wrote...

As much as everyone loves making that comparison, I think there is a less than subtle difference. The ring wasn't an arbitrary unexplained plot device that showed up in the second chapter of the last book.

You're right - it was an arbitrary unexplained plot device that showed up in a prequel instead.

a.m.p wrote...
Neither did Frodo suddenly cooperate with Sauron to find a solution to his ongiong logistical problems.

No, he just borrowed his volcano.

[FlyingCow371]

Opsrbest wrote...

I ask this with all intent of curiosity. What is so difficult about understanding that Bioware has no intentions to change the ending and is only clarifying and expanding on the current ending?

Probably from all that "We're listening" stuff that they throw around. Plus they often said that they won't rewrite the ending 'cause people might like the original 3 choices, and this idea - offering another path, doesn't remove the original choices and so people who like those still have them. It fits better with the character of Shepard...uncompromising in his ideals, not likely to suddenly become a tool of the reapers at the end and either commit genocide vs the geth, rape every being in the galaxy with synthesis, or become a new reaper overlord in control.

During my playthrough, when I got to the ending after the conversation was over, after looking at the 3 pathway options I immediately though "No, **** that ****, that's not how Shepard rolls" and walked away, looking for another option. Spent a while limping around that level, then shot the ghost kid for a bit before seeing that no, bioware dropped the ball and didn't include any worthwhile choices. So then closed my eyes, spun around the joystick and went wherever that was pointing.

Rejecting the starchild's choices, plus some minor clarification on how badly the universe Shepard's allies, and friendsgot ****ed by the ending, would be enough to make the ending great.

[Solmanian]

jinxter69 wrote...
...

Bioware is about to MISS the OPPORTUNITY OF A LIFETIME! With an addition of new endings along with the original...This IS the ONLY WIN/WIN situation they will see. Because you allow someone's ego to stay intact by keeping the deus ex machina endings, you give the fans the logical endings THEIR Shepards should have, that keeps in mind their choices, and how they played THEIR Shepards. WIN/WIN, everyone is happy.

*snipidoda*

 

Actually, agreeing to this and most other suggestion for "extra endings", is a LOSE/LOSE scenario. I'm not criticizing you or the OP for your desire for more options, just trying to explain why it can't and won't happen:

A. capitulating to their demands won't magicaly make the disgruntled posters, that rant about how bioware and EA are the devil and that they'll never buy another one of their game (I swear, some of them must be plants by Bethesda...), happy. They won't suddenly start "BW/EA appreciation thread". From my experience most of them will write posts along the lines of "well, thank you for putting in what shoulda been there from the start", "this ending still sucks", and ofcourse the ever present "the money I paid for the game is theo nly thanks that BW needs or deserve".

B. there's a reason for the similarities between the endings. Adding vastly different endings would effectively kill the franchise. The similarities between the endings (more precisely, the destruction of the relays) is to give future installments (ME4 or somesuch) a common enough starting ground without breaking the different cannons of different players. You may even be able to import your save. The alterantive is that they'll be forced to simply choose one ending and declare it as cannon; effecetively nullifying all your choices in the ME1-3... you saved the rachni? not anymore. cured the genophage? not anymore. Saved the quarians in the G/Q war? not anymore. You get the picture. The charm in bioware games is their persistency: there's always something, even something as frivolus as pantalons, that carries on to next installments or even games from a different series (like the space hamster). To accomodate your wish, would mean that in the future BW writers approach to the ME trilogy, will like something in a museum that has no real connection to the current player actions. For me, that would be heartbreaking.

P.s. I personely didn't like all the parts of the endings, but it realy wasn't the worse ending I saw. Did you finish oblivion? Summery: imagine you arrive on earth, and you are treated to a cinematic showing anderson beating harbinger in hand to hand combat. With harbinger defeated, the reapers give up and leave our galaxy.  Anderson is declared the biggest baddass in the universe, and you realize everything shepard has done in the last three years was a colosal waste of time. Oh, and the crucible? just a mcguffin that doesn't realy do anything. The end.

[PsyrenY]

I'm fine with "screw you starkid! Attack!" if it results in game over. But throwing out all the game's tension by saying "lol, Hackett's an idiot, of course we could win conventionally" is much worse writing.

[Solmanian]

FlyingCow371 wrote...

*snip*

During my playthrough, when I got to the ending after the conversation was over, after looking at the 3 pathway options I immediately though "No, **** that ****, that's not how Shepard rolls" and walked away, looking for another option. Spent a while limping around that level, then shot the ghost kid for a bit...
*snip*

You started wandering around the level looking for a different ending?  That's so sad, its funny